Nells (Full Version)

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



Message

decourcy2 -> Nells (10/19/2017 3:43:16 AM)

There are two G3M groups starting at Saigon that have an extremely limited mission selection. For example if they are on naval strike they have no search option. They cannot naval search as a main mission either.

I opened them in the editor and i did not see anything obvious, does anyone know anything about this?

Thanks,
Mike



PaxMondo -> RE: Nells (10/19/2017 3:48:09 AM)

They are set to NIGHT ... you want more mission profiles, set them to DAY ...
[;)]



VigaBrand -> RE: Nells (10/19/2017 11:16:01 AM)

What is the advantage of the Radar on the next Nell?



specie1 -> RE: Nells (10/19/2017 12:06:12 PM)

Can I operate Nells and Betties from a size 3 airbase if I have an Air HQ? Will they use Torpedoes. Can they be effective, or do I need a size 4?



Yaab -> RE: Nells (10/19/2017 12:19:47 PM)

Level 2 should be enough for the torpedoes.



PaxMondo -> RE: Nells (10/19/2017 1:24:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VigaBrand

What is the advantage of the Radar on the next Nell?

radar will not be present on the plane until the device is active. i this case, 1945. ditto for the MAD device on Helen. ...



PaxMondo -> RE: Nells (10/19/2017 1:27:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: specie1

Can I operate Nells and Betties from a size 3 airbase if I have an Air HQ? Will they use Torpedoes. Can they be effective, or do I need a size 4?

Yaab says lvl 2, but I'm not sure. they are med bombers and the load chart in the manual says they would only use half loads until lvl 4. You can operate from any size air base, but dependent upon the bomb load, the aircraft will operate at half capacity until the air base is large enough. I generally interpret that to mean the extended range load out which for Netties is 2x250kg bombs, not a torp.



specie1 -> RE: Nells (10/19/2017 1:34:13 PM)

Hi Pax, that was my understanding but i was concerned that i was missing an opportunity to operate Nells from Singkawang early. I'm not sure i understand Air HQs enough to see if they would impact. Having a Naval HQ in a port seems to make it seem larger to help with reloading and things. Wouldn't having an Air HQ help with making an airbase seem larger to operate bombers?



PaxMondo -> RE: Nells (10/19/2017 2:22:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: specie1

Hi Pax, that was my understanding but i was concerned that i was missing an opportunity to operate Nells from Singkawang early. I'm not sure i understand Air HQs enough to see if they would impact. Having a Naval HQ in a port seems to make it seem larger to help with reloading and things. Wouldn't having an Air HQ help with making an airbase seem larger to operate bombers?

Yes and no. HQ_Air helps with overstacking penalty, a lot. But not with load out limit that i know of. It enables torp loads. and of course it has a lot of AV devices that help with repairs/maintenance.



specie1 -> RE: Nells (10/19/2017 2:42:30 PM)

so the only way to get my nells and betties with torpedoes farther south are Balikpapan, Davao, Kendari, and Ambon? I guess Kuantan and Kota Bharu too but they're not that far south. Of course Clark Field and Singapore ain't gonna happen for a while.



decourcy2 -> RE: Nells (10/19/2017 3:42:53 PM)

Thanks, should have noticed that. I will have to change it in my mod as it is ahistorical.




Alfred -> RE: Nells (10/19/2017 4:00:51 PM)

It is possible to get Netties to fly out of level 2 airfields with torpedoes.

Alfred



specie1 -> RE: Nells (10/19/2017 5:12:09 PM)

Thanks Alfred. This game always makes me feel like an idiot.



geofflambert -> RE: Nells (10/19/2017 6:56:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: specie1

so the only way to get my nells and betties with torpedoes farther south are Balikpapan, Davao, Kendari, and Ambon? I guess Kuantan and Kota Bharu too but they're not that far south. Of course Clark Field and Singapore ain't gonna happen for a while.


Anywhere you put an Air HQ plus it's command radius you can have torpedoes. Make sure there's plenty of supply (at the HQ's base) as that's what you'll produce the torpedoes from. Of course make sure the HQ has an inventory. I usually stock 40 or 60 torps.

edit: Just to be clear, a level two airbase allows bombers to operate (just don't overcrowd it) but you must have an Air HQ
within it's command radius with an inventory of torpedoes in order to arm the bombers with torpedoes.



PaxMondo -> RE: Nells (10/20/2017 12:58:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

It is possible to get Netties to fly out of level 2 airfields with torpedoes.

Alfred

Thanks for this, I wasn't sure. Is this a special code just for torps? How does this not contradict the AF lvl vs load out? Or am I just confusing parts of the manual (again)?



Alfred -> RE: Nells (10/20/2017 1:35:29 AM)

Torpedoes are subject to additional code.

Limitations on level bombers flying out of underdeveloped airfields are listed on pages 162-163 (s.7.2.1.7) of the manual.  The availability of land torpedoes is covered on pages 165-166 (s.7.2.1.10.2.2) of the manual.  Prima facie there would appear to be a conflict between the two relevant sections of the manual.  The former section basically represents classical WITP praxis whereas the latter section represents the new AE praxis.

This issue was addressed in depth in 2009 with several posts from michaelm who introduced the new AE code requirements.  I provide the following 2013 thread

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3336547&mpage=1&key=netties&#3336771

which goes over the same ground by Japanese players who had actually operated Netties out of level 2 or level 3 airfields flying strike missions with torpedoes.  Note in particular SulySea's post in the linked thread which provides a hyperlink back to the 2009 thread with the various michaelm posts.  Providing this consolidated 2013 thread obviates the need for me to provide other earlier threads where I and others address the issue.

When accused that the arrangement would result in unbridled torpedo carrying Nettie sorties, michaelm's disagreed as the limiting factor was both the availability of HQs with stored torpedoes and the substantial increase in required supply at the actual underdeveloped airfield from which the Netties launch.  Both the 2009 and 2013 threads quantify the additional supply required whereas this quantification is not disclosed in the manual.

Alfred



Aurorus -> RE: Nells (10/20/2017 2:52:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Torpedoes are subject to additional code.

Limitations on level bombers flying out of underdeveloped airfields are listed on pages 162-163 (s.7.2.1.7) of the manual.  The availability of land torpedoes is covered on pages 165-166 (s.7.2.1.10.2.2) of the manual.  Prima facie there would appear to be a conflict between the two relevant sections of the manual.  The former section basically represents classical WITP praxis whereas the latter section represents the new AE praxis.

This issue was addressed in depth in 2009 with several posts from michaelm who introduced the new AE code requirements.  I provide the following 2013 thread

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3336547&mpage=1&key=netties�

which goes over the same ground by Japanese players who had actually operated Netties out of level 2 or level 3 airfields flying strike missions with torpedoes.  Note in particular SulySea's post in the linked thread which provides a hyperlink back to the 2009 thread with the various michaelm posts.  Providing this consolidated 2013 thread obviates the need for me to provide other earlier threads where I and others address the issue.

When accused that the arrangement would result in unbridled torpedo carrying Nettie sorties, michaelm's disagreed as the limiting factor was both the availability of HQs with stored torpedoes and the substantial increase in required supply at the actual underdeveloped airfield from which the Netties launch.  Both the 2009 and 2013 threads quantify the additional supply required whereas this quantification is not disclosed in the manual.

Alfred


AFBs always think that Netties will attack at will across vast distances. Having Netties strike targets at range, strike small TFs, or strike anything with CAP requires that a player create the right set of circumstances with good organization and preparation. It is a trade secret of better Japanese play. It is highly improbable that a player can transfer a squadron of Netties into a size 2 airfield and immediately launch a torpedo attack against CVs 14 hexes away.



geofflambert -> RE: Nells (10/20/2017 6:48:54 AM)

Early on in the war I mostly use Netties to train Kate aircrews. Kates are more apt to attack from a level two airfield.



adarbrauner -> RE: Nells (10/20/2017 11:11:23 AM)

Are you training monoplane pilots on heavy 2 engines?

I strive and try to train pilots for the 2Eng bombers on similar airplanes, i.e. to track and separate pilots trained with 2Eng for similar operativ airplane units.

RHS mod happily provides for such instances, by dedicated training units equipped by real training aiplanes.

I'd like very much that the game may track pilots trained for a kind of airplane as more suitable to be assigned to unit eqipped with comparable machines.

I'd also like the game to keep a track of carrier trained and qualified pilots singularly, rather than of the whole regardless of specific pilot qualifications....



geofflambert -> RE: Nells (10/20/2017 12:04:01 PM)

The only biplanes I have are Jeans. All the rest are monoplanes. I don't think it makes much difference how many engines you have for training. I've heard stories of pilots switching from bombers to fighters and vice versa. I even graduate Mavis pilots who've become adept at Naval Search to training squadrons teaching for DB or TBD skills as I like both types to be able to search. I also use surplus transport squadrons to raise general skills, graduate them when their defensive skills reach 50 to fighter training squadrons. If your pilot reaches level 70 in just about any major skill besides search, he can pick up flying any kind of plane real quick. I think you're being a bit anal about that. I even use Jakes to train for sweep. I presume the developers put that in because the Jakes are high performance enough. I use float planes of all sorts to train for search and for naval attack and for ASW. Do you think a Rufe pilot should be trained on a Dave or a Zero? We know the answer to that.

On the carrier training, I get your point, have inexperienced crews have a higher accident rate. The developers bypassed that complicated nightmare and simplified things, and that cannot be changed now. Besides I don't see a dramatic difference in accident rates between carrier trained and non carrier trained squadrons.

One thing I don't know is what happens if you divide a squadron, have one subsquadron operate on carriers for 90 days and then recombine the squadron. Anybody else know?



geofflambert -> RE: Nells (10/20/2017 12:10:45 PM)

Bombardiers on 4Es had to learn how to fly. I don't know of a case but I bet one had to land one of those beasts after losing the pilots.



geofflambert -> RE: Nells (10/20/2017 3:45:09 PM)

By the way, on the pronunciation of "vice versa". The Latin V was their W (in Late Latin) and their letter C was their kappa. They pronounced it weekay way-rsah. citation: see "The Life of Bwian" [:D]



MakeeLearn -> RE: Nells (10/20/2017 4:16:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

By the way, on the pronunciation of "vice versa". The Latin V was there W (in Late Latin) and their letter C was their kappa. They pronounced it weekay way-rsah. citation: see "The Life of Bwian" [:D]


What's so funny about "Biggus Torpedus"?



Zorch -> RE: Nells (10/20/2017 5:45:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

By the way, on the pronunciation of "vice versa". The Latin V was there W (in Late Latin) and their letter C was their kappa. They pronounced it weekay way-rsah. citation: see "The Life of Bwian" [:D]


What's so funny about "Biggus Torpedus"?

People of Jerwusalem! Wome is your fwiend! Who would you have me welease?



AW1Steve -> RE: Nells (10/20/2017 10:42:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Bombardiers on 4Es had to learn how to fly. I don't know of a case but I bet one had to land one of those beasts after losing the pilots.

Once ww2 started (prewar USAAF bombardiers and navigators were enlisted) most bombardiers and navigators were washed out pilot trainees. In those days , all aircrew required basically perfect eye sight. Today , most non-pilot flying officers wear glasses (only pilots need perfect , uncorrected eye sight). I can't speak for the USAF , but in the Navy among enlisted aircrew , there was an old saying "never trust an NFO (naval fight officer , a naval officer flyer who is not a pilot) who doesn't wear glasses. I've known some NFO's who wore glasses in flight , and contacts on the ground because of this saying. [:D]



geofflambert -> RE: Nells (10/20/2017 11:00:00 PM)

In a pig's eye.



AW1Steve -> RE: Nells (10/20/2017 11:05:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

In a pig's eye.



You calling me a pig, lizard face? [:D]



Zorch -> RE: Nells (10/20/2017 11:38:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

In a pig's eye.



You calling me a pig, lizard face? [:D]

Them is fighting words!
Wait - you're already fighting. Carry on!



AW1Steve -> RE: Nells (10/21/2017 12:13:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

In a pig's eye.



You calling me a pig, lizard face? [:D]

Them is fighting words!
Wait - you're already fighting. Carry on!



As John Paul Jones said "I've not yet begun to fight"! What history doesn't recall is the quartermaster standing next to him saying "now would be a good time , sir!". [:D]



cohimbra -> RE: Nells (10/21/2017 9:19:14 PM)

Sorry, haven't read all thread but wanted to share my late ingame discover about Nells and H-6 Radar (well, about all planes using this new device): they can operate at night! Very useful to avoid heavy allied cap.

[image]http://i68.tinypic.com/idcftz.jpg[/image]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.234375