RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/10/2007 3:28:45 AM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

Besides keeping track of planes lost daily and for the whole campaign, could they keep track of pilots killed?? It's nice to know that as the planes are easier to replace.

If you play a non-historical first turn, you can go around to all your squadrons and add pilots without it effecting your pools. Is this loophole going to be closed??

_____________________________

(in reply to wworld7)

Post #: 271

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/10/2007 3:35:04 AM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

How about limiting IJA aviation support to support only IJA a/c, IJN aviation support to support only IJN a/c?

That would be cool, could we extend this to Not alowing FAA Units to be suported on US CV's and vice versa, and Comenwealth Units to only be suported by Comenwealth unit's?

It almost sounds like more trouble than it's worth.

Brady, You are hired for the purposes of speculating answers to questions in this thread for me...

You could look at it that way. OTOH, you could also look at it as a cheap and cheerful way to knock out a bit of the unrealistic IJA/IJN co-operation the AFBs are forever whining about

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 272

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/10/2007 3:36:40 PM

Knavey

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline

Been here, read this.

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 273

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/10/2007 6:40:14 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

Did I see somewhere in the avalanche of emails over the weekend that air units will be squadron size? Does this mean that Japanese air units will be chutai or daitai/chutai?

(in reply to Knavey)

Post #: 274

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/11/2007 3:15:32 AM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Did I see somewhere in the avalanche of emails over the weekend that air units will be squadron size?� Does this mean that Japanese air units will be chutai or daitai/chutai?

Generally air units are portrayed at their lowest, non-organic level. For the Japanese this means that things stays much the same as always.

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 275

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/11/2007 4:02:29 AM

jshan

Posts: 97
Joined: 6/27/2004
Status: offline

Is any time being spent on making air losses more realistic. IMHO they are quite excessive. I believe others agree.

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 276

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/11/2007 4:47:59 AM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jshan
Is any time being spent on making air losses more realistic.� IMHO they are quite excessive.� I believe others agree.

While we can't turn lead into gold, the overaching goal of the reworked A2A code (less bloody), the new service rating (more downtime), and the revised OOB (fewer aircraft) is to lessen air combat lethality.

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to jshan)

Post #: 277

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/11/2007 5:03:06 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

Given what has been disclosed above - including things like altitude ratings for aircraft - I think you HAVE turned lead into gold. Which is to say - outstanding work.

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 278

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/11/2007 10:25:24 AM

hvymtl13

Posts: 214
Joined: 8/29/2007
Status: offline

Great plan on this expansion. Sounds great.
I read all the previous posts and good questions and answers. So I have only a couple:
Recon was mentioned fairly often so far, but no mention of intercepting them. I've noticed myself and read a few threads on this subject that imply they are overly difficult to shoot down. If they operate within the same altitude band as cap is set, will they be more likely to be intercepted than they are now?
Will reconansiance information be more accurate or detailed? Including unit names, moving direction NE 10 knots etc.. Depending of course on pilot experiance how accurate the info would be..

Biggest question I have is- I've read where some ordanance will be tracked, ie mines and possibly torpedoes etc. concerning thier availibility; but no option to control the air strikes specific loadout of available ordnance? Is this set in stone already or not possible to include? The player defined loadouts on airstikes would be seriously cool stuff.

_____________________________

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 279

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/11/2007 1:00:48 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

One of the problems with the CV based air model I've encountered regularly has been the inabilty of the model to handle the exacting data pertaining to the aircraft (range and endurance specifically) with TF movement and the hex grid map. This always resulted in Japanese CV TFs, with their longer range/endurance aircraft, enjoying the ability to strike with impunity at long range because the Japanese aircraft range is marginally over four/five hexes while Allied range is marginally under four/three hexes. The Allied CV TFs don't launch because of the nature of the map (hex grid) and the 'reaction mechanism' designed to deal with this real data vs hex grid mapping just can't cope with the situation...it either fails to react or goes bounding off to it's doom. Has the reaction model been improved to allow for this tactical level detail within the more strategic format the game phases represent...can Allied CVs launch despite the aircraft being shorter ranged, or have the naval based aircraft been given a rounded up/down reange/endurance (ie...all Japanese/Allied CV TF aircraft strike range maxed at 4 hexes) to ensure launch.

In conjunction with this desire to equalize Jap/Allied strike range for CV based aircraft to alleviate the limitations of the hex grid, why not use the range/endurance to determine coordination/strike size and weapon loadout only instead of allowing the extra hex range simply because the data, when translated into hexes, allows for an extra hex range as the stated range/endurance of certain aircraft barely cross the range needed for the extra hex?

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to hvymtl13)

Post #: 280

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/11/2007 2:09:21 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Did I see somewhere in the avalanche of emails over the weekend that air units will be squadron size?� Does this mean that Japanese air units will be chutai or daitai/chutai?

Generally air units are portrayed at their lowest, non-organic level. For the Japanese this means that things stays much the same as always.

Very good. Thanks. I was concerned that if the Japanese used chutai for all the air units we'd be overwelmed by units and that it would take forever to assign missions to them.

That begs another question: Would it be possible to give multiple air units at a base the same mission all at once instead of one at a time?

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 281

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/11/2007 2:17:18 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

Somewhere in here I think I saw mention of sectors for AA fire in so far as TF defense is concerned. Has this been manipulated in some fashion to account for the different tactical formations used by the Japanese and Allies (particularly in the 1942 time frame): to whit, the tremendous dispersion of a Japanese TF under air attack (up to 30 km) which essentially put screening ships out of effective AAA range of the CVs (but allowed the CVs to manuever radically when under attack) versus the close in (1500-2000 yard) ring formation of the Allies which constrained manuever by the CV somewhat but allowed the screen to concentrate its AAA against aircraft attacking the CV?

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 282

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/11/2007 2:18:07 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hvymtl13

Biggest question I have is- I've read where some ordanance will be tracked, ie mines and possibly torpedoes etc. concerning thier availibility; but no option to control the air strikes specific loadout of available ordnance? Is this set in stone already or not possible to include? The player defined loadouts on airstikes would be seriously cool stuff.

I agree here. For me, at a minimum, would it be possible to at least to be able to toggle on or off torpedoes on the TBs on carriers. Any possibility of that?

(in reply to hvymtl13)

Post #: 283

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/11/2007 4:08:31 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

quote:

the Japanese aircraft range is marginally over four/five hexes while Allied range is marginally under four/three hexes. [snip]

Hey Ron, interesting observation, and an interesting suggestion to use range differently than it's used now. But I have one quick comment: won't the new 40-mile hexes somewhat alleviate the problem you're describing? More granularity in distances means that range-approximation will now be somewhat more accurate, as aircraft ranges will increase to reflect the larger scale map. Maybe not accurate enough fully to address the issue you raise, but perhaps enough to mitigate it somewhat.

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 284

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/11/2007 8:01:36 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi all,

Can't recall seeing this puppy in here.

Are there any tweaks to Minelaying missions in terms of whether CAP will be able to intercept them?

Hi all,

?

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 285

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/11/2007 8:12:50 PM

Javakamp

Posts: 172
Joined: 2/17/2004
From: Lakeland, FL.
Status: offline

Since the air units are going to be squadron sized, could the units be named so we can tell what group the squadron belongs to? For instance 67FS / 347FG would be the 67th Fighter Squadron of the 347th Fighter Group.

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 286

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/11/2007 8:15:45 PM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Javakamp

Since the air units are going to be squadron sized, could the units be named so we can tell what group the squadron belongs to? For instance 67FS / 347FG would be the 67th Fighter Squadron of the 347th Fighter Group.

That would probably be a better question for the OOB group.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to Javakamp)

Post #: 287

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/11/2007 9:40:23 PM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Given what has been disclosed above - including things like altitude ratings for aircraft - I think you HAVE turned lead into gold. Which is to say - outstanding work.

Why thank you for the vote of confidence, Sid. Hopefully we won't disappoint.

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 288

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/11/2007 9:43:15 PM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

One of the problems with the CV based air model I've encountered regularly has been the inabilty of the model to handle the exacting data pertaining to the aircraft (range and endurance specifically) with TF movement and the hex grid map. This always resulted in Japanese CV TFs, with their longer range/endurance aircraft, enjoying the ability to strike with impunity at long range because the Japanese aircraft range is marginally over four/five hexes while Allied range is marginally under four/three hexes. The Allied CV TFs don't launch because of the nature of the map (hex grid) and the 'reaction mechanism' designed to deal with this real data vs hex grid mapping just can't cope with the situation...it either fails to react or goes bounding off to it's doom. Has the reaction model been improved to allow for this tactical level detail within the more strategic format the game phases represent...can Allied CVs launch despite the aircraft being shorter ranged, or have the naval based aircraft been given a rounded up/down reange/endurance (ie...all Japanese/Allied CV TF aircraft strike range maxed at 4 hexes) to ensure launch.

In conjunction with this desire to equalize Jap/Allied strike range for CV based aircraft to alleviate the limitations of the hex grid, why not use the range/endurance to determine coordination/strike size and weapon loadout only instead of allowing the extra hex range simply because the data, when translated into hexes, allows for an extra hex range as the stated range/endurance of certain aircraft barely cross the range needed for the extra hex?

All I can say ATM is that we're aware of the issue and exploring some options. Better than nothing, I guess.

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 289

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/11/2007 9:51:12 PM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Javakamp

Since the air units are going to be squadron sized, could the units be named so we can tell what group the squadron belongs to? For instance 67FS / 347FG would be the 67th Fighter Squadron of the 347th Fighter Group.

USAAF squadrons will be set up as you suggest. Group structures were generally stable with some exceptions particularly among the fighter groups. In relevant cases, players will have to accept some compromises with regards to naming. Specifically, to keep groups @ 3-4 squadrons, we will need to rename units when they historically transferred from one group to another. This is unlikely to follow the lines of actual gane deployment of units by players.

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to Javakamp)

Post #: 290

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/11/2007 9:51:57 PM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi all,

Can't recall seeing this puppy in here.

Are there any tweaks to Minelaying missions in terms of whether CAP will be able to intercept them?

Hi all,

?

Currently SAIEW

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 291

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/11/2007 9:52:56 PM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
That begs another question: Would it be possible to give multiple air units at a base the same mission all at once instead of one at a time?

SAIEW, Mike

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 292

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/12/2007 12:30:26 AM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi all,

Can't recall seeing this puppy in here.

Are there any tweaks to Minelaying missions in terms of whether CAP will be able to intercept them?

Hi all,

?

Currently SAIEW

That's too bad. It makes Allied minelaying of Japanese ports totally ahistorical due to the inability of the Japanese to affect it at all. That really concerns me. May I ask why it's not being looked at?

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 293

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/12/2007 12:59:30 AM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

IRL the Japanese were unable to significantly affect the aerial minelaying itself: practically no minelayers were shot down by Japanese defenses. They could sweep the mines though. Apparently mines are going to be tracked or restricted in some fashion so it may well be that you overstate the problem.

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 294

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/12/2007 1:28:57 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

With a severe reduction in number of mines available, the problem should be somewhat alleviated...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 295

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/12/2007 2:57:34 AM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

With a severe reduction in number of mines available, the problem should be somewhat alleviated...

I'll take your word for it T.

Spence, there's a big difference between shooting down practically no minelayers and having 0% chance of ever shooting down a minelayer.

I'm still concerned about this.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 296

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/12/2007 3:34:53 AM

Javakamp

Posts: 172
Joined: 2/17/2004
From: Lakeland, FL.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Javakamp

Since the air units are going to be squadron sized, could the units be named so we can tell what group the squadron belongs to? For instance 67FS / 347FG would be the 67th Fighter Squadron of the 347th Fighter Group.

USAAF squadrons will be set up as you suggest. Group structures were generally stable with some exceptions particularly among the fighter groups. In relevant cases, players will have to accept some compromises with regards to naming. Specifically, to keep groups @ 3-4 squadrons, we will need to rename units when they historically transferred from one group to another. This is unlikely to follow the lines of actual gane deployment of units by players.

I can live with those little things.

Thanks for the answer and all the hard work.

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 297

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/12/2007 3:43:36 AM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

quote:

Spence, there's a big difference between shooting down practically no minelayers and having 0% chance of ever shooting down a minelayer.

The total loss of minelaying aircraft during the 6 month campaign against the Home Islands was 15 aircraft to all causes. Since all mining missions occur at night I'll wager that the ops losses provided by the game engine mechanics exceed the actual losses considerably.

< Message edited by spence -- 12/12/2007 3:44:07 AM >

(in reply to Javakamp)

Post #: 298

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/12/2007 3:56:46 AM

BB57

Posts: 89
Joined: 1/20/2003
From: Beresford, SD
Status: offline

I have always felt that once Iwo was taken by the allies B-29 op losses from the Mariannas should be less. Is this being looked at or is it even possible?

Will USAAF long range recon assets (B-24 and B-29) be included?

You guys are way better than most goverments. They couldn't possibly have kept a secret of the magatude of AE for 2 years.

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 299

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 12/12/2007 5:44:35 AM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BB57

You guys are way better than most goverments. They couldn't possibly have kept a secret of the magatude of AE for 2 years.

LOL! This is soooo true.

And I say this as a veteran of five U.S. federal government agencies: the Army; the Environmental Protection Agency; the Department of Transportation; the State Department and (currently) the Small Business Administration.

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to BB57)

Post #: 300