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

Sieppo -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (2/22/2013 7:00:06 PM)

Akagi

[image]local://upfiles/43604/AB2736E40E594DE88466B3042F9EB402.jpg[/image]



Sieppo -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (2/22/2013 7:02:06 PM)

Sorry if this is not the correct way to post pictures but it only lets me post one at a time. The last picture of the Kates attacking.

[image]local://upfiles/43604/13AABB10F17148A89385C2B7C9747146.jpg[/image]



Quixote -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (2/22/2013 7:06:04 PM)

What range did the Kates engage from? It looks like you attacked at extended range, and so used bombs instead of torpedoes.



Sieppo -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (2/22/2013 7:27:42 PM)

8 hexes, so it was too far for the Vals. How does the range affect torpedo attacks?

Edit: apparently this is the extended range (over 7) for Kates and because of this they could not use torpedoes. I just did not know this, my mistake. Solved, thanks :)!



wdolson -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (2/22/2013 10:57:56 PM)

The engine under goes a bunch of die roll checks to use torpedoes. The checks include the value of the target, but it's the value based on the spotting report, which can be wrong with FOW on. Maybe the spotter plane reported seeing destroyers?

99% of the time Kates should carry torpedoes under those circumstances, but there are always cases where things happen oddly. Just like real life.

Edit: missed the last page before replying. It does look like it was the max range strike issue.

Bill



Sieppo -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (2/22/2013 11:43:45 PM)

Thanks for the elaboration about the dice rolls Bill! Sorry about the frustration once again.



PaxMondo -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (2/23/2013 3:30:34 AM)

As Alfred states, there are a lot of reasons this could happen.  You haven't posted nearly enough data for anyone to answer.  You need to show a screen shot of the two TF's with your mouse hovering over the allied TF to show that tooltip.  Then show a screen shot of the Kate airgroup screen.  At that point we may have enough to start making some supported conjecture.

BTW: you are posting in the wrong place for your question. This is for data updates. You should just post in the MAIN forum. You will get more assist.



Sieppo -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (2/23/2013 11:46:13 PM)

I think this issue was solved already by the extended range issue. I don't know why this would be the wrong forum for my question. I'm sorry if I have broken some unwritten rule of forum behavior :/.



wdolson -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (2/24/2013 12:32:04 AM)

This thread worked, but I think PaxMondo was pointing out that most people will start a new thread if they have an issue like this come up. Many of the sticky threads are already very long and new questions may get lost in the shuffle and not as many people will read it. Your chances of getting an answer are better with a new thread.

Bill



BigDuke66 -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (6/12/2014 4:07:56 PM)

What is up with the TBF-1 Avenger and the ASB Radar.
First the Avenger comes in 5.42 but the Radar on 6.42, is the radar now already in use in May when the plane enters?
Furthermore all I found about the Avenger and the ASB Radar was that it either only got into "late production models" or "by the end of 1942".
Having the Avenger with radar and that already in the summer of 1942 seems way too much too early.



miv792 -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (7/4/2014 8:54:24 PM)

Who how does clean out the large air fields with the decent amount of fighters ? And put sweep... so they by installments fly that very not advantageously when enemies are much...



Dili -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (12/5/2014 5:47:39 AM)

This depends on assumptions, but i am seeing Venturas, A-20's, Hudson's with a crew of 2. They had only one pilot position and usually only one pilot.



wdolson -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (12/5/2014 6:02:32 AM)

I believe the Ventura and Hudson had crew positions for a co-pilot, but it wasn't always used. The Lockheed bombers were converted airliners.

Bill



Dili -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (12/5/2014 6:13:11 AM)

In the manual(Ventura) and pilot notes(Hudson) they don't have co-pilot position.



m10bob -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (4/18/2015 4:27:25 PM)

Hello...Very curious...In the editor, why are so many known "Fighter Bombers" listed only as fighters?
I remember reading FB's get some kind of bonus, but I would like to know if it is something the computer reads.
Especially curious when looking at things like the P-47..(listed purely as a fighter)..
Thank you........[:)]



m10bob -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (4/18/2015 6:46:41 PM)

Hello..When the North American A 36 was released, it was described as a dive bomber by the USAAF..It and the P-51A were built at the same time, but both purpose built for different functions.
The A36A and P51A both had the Allison engine, but the A36 was a dive bomber,the P51A a fighter-bomber.
The A36A even had dive brakes, both over and underwing.

The A36A carried 6x.50 MG's(as in game) while the P51A carried only 4x.50MG's(as in game.
Other than the MG's, the only really noticeable thing about the two in appearance, was the P51A had the Allison V-1710-81 engine.

50 of the P51A's ordered were acquired by the RAF as the Mustang II
35 others were converted to F6B recon planes.

If this area of the forum is meant for questions only, I am asking why this is not reflected in the game?(Both are listed purely as "fighters".)

Source:Combat Aircraft Of The World by John W.R.Taylor..ISBN 0-339-50471-0

This is on site of the USAF:

Unofficially named the "Invader," the A-36A Apache dive bomber was the first U.S. Army Air Forces version of the Mustang (the Mustang was officially developed for Britain in 1940). The first A-36 flew in September 1942, and North American completed production of 500 A-36As in March 1943.

Assigned to the 27th and 86th Bombardment Groups (Dive), the A-36A first saw action against the the island of Pantelleria in June 1943. During the Italian campaign, A-36A pilots flew bomber escort and strafing missions as well as ground support bombing attacks. A-36As also served with the 311th Fighter Bomber Group in India. In 1944 bomb rack equipped P-51s and P-47s replaced the A-36A when experience showed that these high-altitude fighters were more suitable for low-level missions than the A-36As.

TECHNICAL NOTES:
Armament: Six .50-cal. machine guns; 1,000 lbs of bombs externally
Engine: Allison V-1710 of 1,325 hp
Maximum speed: 365 mph
Cruising speed: 250 mph
Range: 550 miles
Ceiling: 25,100 ft.
Span: 37 ft.
Length: 32 ft. 3 in.
Height: 12 ft. 2 in.
Weight: 10,000 lbs. loaded
Serial number: 42-83665



JeffroK -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (4/18/2015 11:05:11 PM)

Change it in the editor and see if anything changes.



m10bob -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (4/19/2015 1:10:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Change it in the editor and see if anything changes.


Jeff..Thank you..I appreciate your time....(I am also happy to have such a fantastically simple editor with the game!!)



Symon -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (4/19/2015 5:53:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
Hello...Very curious...In the editor, why are so many known "Fighter Bombers" listed only as fighters?
I remember reading FB's get some kind of bonus, but I would like to know if it is something the computer reads.
Especially curious when looking at things like the P-47..(listed purely as a fighter)..
Thank you........[:)]

At the risk of being glib, Bob, the answer is ... because.

There's no way in the game system to set planes to do this or do that, it's one-size-fits-all. So is a plane a Fighter? or a FB? or something else? Pick one. And your choice is dispositive. Just imagine the howls from the community if we scarred the F-4U -1D and -4 with their actual performance specs while carying bombs in an FB configuration.

The game engine is all, and we must do the data to fit the engine parameters regardless of IRL situations. Sorry. JWE



m10bob -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (4/19/2015 6:38:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
Hello...Very curious...In the editor, why are so many known "Fighter Bombers" listed only as fighters?
I remember reading FB's get some kind of bonus, but I would like to know if it is something the computer reads.
Especially curious when looking at things like the P-47..(listed purely as a fighter)..
Thank you........[:)]

At the risk of being glib, Bob, the answer is ... because.

There's no way in the game system to set planes to do this or do that, it's one-size-fits-all. So is a plane a Fighter? or a FB? or something else? Pick one. And your choice is dispositive. Just imagine the howls from the community if we scarred the F-4U -1D and -4 with their actual performance specs while carying bombs in an FB configuration.

The game engine is all, and we must do the data to fit the engine parameters regardless of IRL situations. Sorry. JWE

Since my fairly recent health-driven retirement..I finally have time to play with the editor in a big way..In past I have altered things, mostly ranges and cargo capacity of transport planes.(I have a great source book for this)..
Now, I am experimenting to learn if their might be some "bonus's" or functions of labeling things FB vs Fighter..
I have learned how to allow a plane to carry both drop tanks AND bombs both short and long range.(I did not know how till now.)
I am working to see how "attack bomber" affects a planes capabilities..Hoping it might be the "magic elixir" which allows the low-level missions of ground support planes without incurring the somewhat harsh morale drops.

I can honestly say that after all this time, I still learn new things every single time I play the game..

John, there is NOTHING to apologize about this game..Gadzooks, it is great..



Anabella888 -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (8/8/2015 9:26:52 AM)

Overall it's looking splendid! [:'(]



Yaab -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (4/12/2016 6:36:52 AM)

What is wrong with the stock Wirraway?

This site says it carried 500 lb of bombs. This would translate into 2 x 250 lb loadout instead of the stock 2 x 100 lb loadout.

http://dbdesignbureau.buckmasterfamily.id.au/tech_info_cac_wirraway.htm



Dili -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (5/16/2016 12:38:10 AM)

Shouldn't Walrus be CV capable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Walrus#/media/File:Walrus_carrier_landing.jpg



wdolson -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (5/16/2016 7:59:17 AM)

The Walrus wasn't an amphibian, it could land on a carrier or land with a landing gear kit. The Kingfisher could also swap floats for landing gear too.

Bill



Dili -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (5/16/2016 11:18:09 PM)

I always read about it as an amphibian. It has retractable main wheels as shown in this pic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SupermarineSeagullRAFMuseumLondonJan2007.jpg

It is also classified as an amphibian in game.



Macclan5 -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (7/18/2016 8:16:02 PM)

Gentlemen

Geeky amateur historian type question.

Not understanding the editor et al...

Where does USAAF V Bomber Command start in the game ? About what date ?

I guess I am referring to both the HQ squadron and HQ LCUnit.

Does it start in Pearl; I cannot recall that far back.




btd64 -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (7/18/2016 8:56:13 PM)

I don't have the game open right now but in most scenarios at an airfield just west of Townsville on Australia's East Coast or Brisbane....GP



dave sindel -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (7/19/2016 12:58:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

Gentlemen

Geeky amateur historian type question.

Not understanding the editor et al...

Where does USAAF V Bomber Command start in the game ? About what date ?

I guess I am referring to both the HQ squadron and HQ LCUnit.

Does it start in Pearl; I cannot recall that far back.




Pretty sure it's Brisbane. I moved it to Charter Towers when it arrived. Playing stock scenario 1



Macclan5 -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (7/19/2016 2:10:58 PM)

Thanks GP / Dave.

Question: Is it possible or is there a variable that allows it to start in Pearl ?

Question: If it shows up there is it due to my ineptness as a player ? or some such variable ? Does the date / fall of Philippines affect it?

--

I am curiously asking only because in 'my first start' of the GC (before I knew anything - before I read anything) I seem to think I recall it showing up in Pearl.

What peaked my curiosity is that V Bomber (and possibly the HQ Squadron of B17) 'absorbed command' of the entire USAAF Hawaiian AF before the VII Bomber Command showed up.

This of course bothered the wanna- be- historian in me.

I made sure to move out the V Bomber Command Squadron to CONUS quickly in my 'for real game' and of course you are correct it spawned in Brisbane.

VII Bomber Command opened in Pearl and correctly took command of USAAF Hawaii.

--

Background:

Having captured Rabul I am contemplating moving V Bomber forward. I am the type of player that consults history and I am debating where to move it to..

i.e. Historically Jackson Airbase Port Moresby and or Nadzab Forward Airbase New Guinea.

Safe enough for now but I am considering Rabul






BBfanboy -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (7/19/2016 4:40:51 PM)

For me, the point of playing the game is to see if you can do better than historical. That means deviation from what happened and any option you choose is a valid one. I am sure the USAAF would have considered using Rabaul as a major base if it could have been captured before it was too far behind the lines.

Nadzab, by historical accounts, was a muddy hell-hole with tent facilities that only really got functional after the fighting had moved on. Seems like a poor place to put an HQ, but maybe there was one there.



Page: <<   < prev  65 66 67 [68] 69   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.5625