RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

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: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

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: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/17/2008 1:06:48 AM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

A lot of the bases on atolls and other small islands were so "brittle" that a good heavy raid did close them for weeks.

For example......?

See Mark Herman's monograph: Empire of the Sun (EoTS) Monograph on U.S. Air Operations versus Japanese Fleet Bases: Truk example

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 511

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/17/2008 1:20:34 PM

Yakface

Posts: 846
Joined: 8/5/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

A lot of the bases on atolls and other small islands were so "brittle" that a good heavy raid did close them for weeks.

For example......?

See Mark Herman's monograph: Empire of the Sun (EoTS) Monograph on U.S. Air Operations versus Japanese Fleet Bases: Truk example

I can well believe that atol bases can fairly easily be put out of action, as you say. To be honest the whole atol thing doesn't reallty work for me - at the moment too many aircraft, men etc can be based at a single atol. I am really talking about the Rangoon's, Wuchow's, Nanchang's, Manila's. Full land bases which often represent a number of air strips, with aircraft that may be dispersed etc. If CAP is less effective the whole balance point shifts between defending a base and the incoming bombers. Expectations of bomber/escort lossese go down whilst damage to the defender goes up (more aircraft get through). It's just a personal opinion but I already think that generally the bomber has the whip-hand in this struggle, so with comparative forces (and recognising I am ignoring a whole load of variables), I find it is better to be attacking a base to close it than it is to be trying to defend it. Reducing only the effectiveness of CAP could IMHO make one of the critical (and fun) struggles in the game rather one sided.

< Message edited by Yakface -- 1/17/2008 1:28:46 PM >

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 512

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/17/2008 1:46:15 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

A lot of the bases on atolls and other small islands were so "brittle" that a good heavy raid did close them for weeks.

For example......?

See Mark Herman's monograph: Empire of the Sun (EoTS) Monograph on U.S. Air Operations versus Japanese Fleet Bases: Truk example

I can well believe that atol bases can fairly easily be put out of action, as you say. To be honest the whole atol thing doesn't reallty work for me - at the moment too many aircraft, men etc can be based at a single atol. I am really talking about the Rangoon's, Wuchow's, Nanchang's, Manila's. Full land bases which often represent a number of air strips, with aircraft that may be dispersed etc. If CAP is less effective the whole balance point shifts between defending a base and the incoming bombers. Expectations of bomber/escort lossese go down whilst damage to the defender goes up (more aircraft get through). It's just a personal opinion but I already think that generally the bomber has the whip-hand in this struggle, so with comparative forces (and recognising I am ignoring a whole load of variables), I find it is better to be attacking a base to close it than it is to be trying to defend it. Reducing only the effectiveness of CAP could IMHO make one of the critical (and fun) struggles in the game rather one sided.

The key factor was "theoretical" capacity. If you took an atoll (like Kwajalein) and bulldozed a B-24 strip (which we did for operations against Truk), you basically flattened an island. You didn't have *any* room for dispersal or for hardening the facilities. The next time it was hit by large Betty raid, it might have to be rebuilt from scratch. Being passively resistant to that sort of stuff depended on three things: room to spread out, a significant local population or garrison (to do a quick rebuild), and investment in facilities (for example, added land area). These issues also applied to naval bases. Ships needed undisturbed time to refit, resupply, and refuel. You could stage through a front-line base that was under air attack, but you couldn't base there. So your forward airbases controlled where his usable naval bases were and allowed you to smother any forward airbases that lacked adequate active air defences and were not passively resistant to your raids.

_____________________________

(in reply to Yakface)

Post #: 513

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/17/2008 2:44:28 PM

Ron Saueracker

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

IMO, AF damage models are too simplistic. No matter what size, 1-10, they are viewed as a single entity. I'd change it so that each numerical increment is a seperate entity (lvl 10 airfield has ten actual seperate airfields). As such, each lvl has to be knocked out, not just a single airfield that happens to have a size 10 capability. Added to this, the AF's levels do not get smacked from the highest to lowest, but can take damage simultaneously (ie Rabaul is a lvl 9 AF...after a B-17 strike the damage might look like this 1: 50% runway, 12% service; 2: 2% runway, 41% service) Knockout one level, it becomes a lvl 8 field until repaired, not a smouldering ruin as we have now.

This should make AFs much more resilient to both air and bombardment attacks.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 514

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/17/2008 3:06:40 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Ron I think you have something there, but breaking an AF into singles is too much. After all, the larger aircraft need bigger runways - not more of them! [If it takes one woman 9 months to have a baby, how many women does it take to have a baby in 1 month?

]

Maybe the same idea but break it into some non-linear model. Just throwing out numbers for discussion:

AF Size______# Entities

1______________1
2______________1
3______________1
4______________2
5______________2
6______________3
7______________3
8______________4
9______________4
10_____________5

As I said, these are just starting number suggestions.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 1/17/2008 3:07:59 PM >

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 515

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/17/2008 7:12:11 PM

Captain Cruft

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

Good ideas but none of that will be happening for AE I'm sure.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 516

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/17/2008 10:33:41 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Will we no longer see the message 'unable to find target' when the primary target is arlready sunk but other ships are in the TF that the ammo could be used at?

This is a good question that I'd like to see addressed...

OTS. Small potatoes.

< Message edited by TheElf -- 1/17/2008 10:34:04 PM >

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 517

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/17/2008 10:40:11 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

Hi Elf.

I understand that the air combat routines are being tweaked to reduce the effectveness of CAP...... I say I undersatnd it to be so simply because I've seen fairly non-specific anecdotes about it. Are there any more details?

Also, if they are being changed, won't this mean that the effectiveness of bombing a base needs to be toned down to keep any sort of balance between attacker and defender (rather than IJ and Allied) . It already seems taht one good strike will close a base and destroy huge numbers of aircraft based there.

Hmmm - if that's changed then we come to the speed with which engineers can repair the damage.....

No. No more details to give out. If you want to ask a specific question a bout a detail you are interested in I can make an attempt.

No, the effectiveness should not need tweaking. All we did was break up the strikes. Still need to test to make sure it is WAA (Working As Advert.). Raids will be increased in number (ie smaller), but the number of sorties over a target has not been toned down, except by generally making A/C less available than stock. Meaning serviceability ratings should eventually take their toll on more complex a/c.

There are some other things thrown in like damage from a round of combat being retained from one phase, and one turn to another. That was not happening in stock.

There is also the new notion that A/C fatigue life will mean they actually age and force replacement or cause ops losses. But these factors take time to become evident in a game.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Yakface)

Post #: 518

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/17/2008 10:44:15 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

What I would like to see is a 'react' option for CAP fighters. As it is in WitP 'leaky' CAP occasionally provides CAP for nearby bases...but this option
is more an annoyance than anything else since it cannot be controlled.

If Base A has 200 CAP fighters and is surrounded by nearby Bases B, C and D (1-2 hexes away) it should be possible to order the CAP to protect not only Base A. Especially as radar comes into play this becomes more and more true, and even without it visual spotting would give enough early warning to send fighters from Base A to Base B, C or D.

In my AAR game I can only provide strong CAP to a handful bases and air balance numbers easily gives this away.
Andy is thereby able to send his bombers to targets just miles away from my 'CAP Zones' and bomb them almost unmolested.

Tokyo for instance could be designated as a 'CAP Zone' for the area 2-3 hexes around it and able to defend other locations according to priorities.
This could be impossible to implement, but it would have made the air war a lot more realistic if you add all the other improvements that will be incorporated in AE.

Yep...would be cool.

What you are describing is more tactical in nature and, OBTW, OTS for this expansion. It also assumes an integrated air defense, which while possible during WWI was the exception not the rule, and even then was limited to Europe. It just isn't worth the effort to try and emulate for the scope of this project.

This is triage...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 519

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/17/2008 10:45:21 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Hi Elf,

I skimmed the thread and didn't see this asked so please forgive me if it has already been asked somewhere but, will Dutch and UK airgroups still not be able to upgrade until May '42? I never liked that rule a lot. It seems that if the Dutch or UK have the aircraft available, especially with PDUs on, they ought to be able to do some squadron management like everyone else. Also, do you know if such things as this will be editable in the editor?

Thanks.

I think something that needs to be addressed is the abilty for airgroups to draw aircraft from a pool which is non-existant when they arrive 90 days after having been disbanded. The Dutch AF is the most glaring instance with disbanded squadrons arriving fully outfitted with Demons or Brewster 339s for example when there are no more in existance. Happens even in CHS when the replacement rate for these a/c have been zeroed.

The dutch problem is being addressed. I thought Thomas answered this a while back...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 520

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/17/2008 10:46:59 PM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

... serviceability ratings ...

So the database now has a serviceability rating for each aircraft model?

quote:

There is also the new notion that A/C fatigue life will mean they actually age and force replacement or cause ops losses. But these factors take time to become evident in a game.

Does this mean that the life-time (flights) of each individual aircraft is tracked to influence the chance of an ops loss of that aircraft?

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 521

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/17/2008 10:48:12 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Not sure if this belongs here or in the Naval Thread.

The IJ Player commonly forms the a/c-capable riff-raff of the IJN (Hosho and Taiyo representing the historical epitome of riff-raff) into something called the mini-KB which also quite commonly raises he!! in some corner of the map and although not quite up to a pitched battle with an equal number of US CVs is quite capable of dealing with the RN fleet carriers and inflicting serious harm to US CVs. Such capabilities for these ships and the airgroups assigned to them are IRL pretty much a IJ wetdream but I suppose in the interest of allowing creative strategy....

The USN had CVEs which IRL carried out serious missions. But for some reason the pilots in the airgroups assigned to them start off with experience that is 20-30 points below the standard for the time frame. Perhaps the pilots who drew CVE duty were not the cream of the crop but they were not the washouts either. Lacking any historical evidence that the pilots assigned to CVE duty were sub-par I think that they should just draw from the same experience pool for the year the ship enters play.

One could argue that that couldn't be true because they were flying from CVEs. Much smaller and more difficult to operate from...

But I am having a hard time detecting a question in this post...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 522

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/17/2008 10:55:07 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

What I would like to see is a 'react' option for CAP fighters. As it is in WitP 'leaky' CAP occasionally provides CAP for nearby bases...but this option
is more an annoyance than anything else since it cannot be controlled.

If Base A has 200 CAP fighters and is surrounded by nearby Bases B, C and D (1-2 hexes away) it should be possible to order the CAP to protect not only Base A. Especially as radar comes into play this becomes more and more true, and even without it visual spotting would give enough early warning to send fighters from Base A to Base B, C or D.

In my AAR game I can only provide strong CAP to a handful bases and air balance numbers easily gives this away.
Andy is thereby able to send his bombers to targets just miles away from my 'CAP Zones' and bomb them almost unmolested.

Tokyo for instance could be designated as a 'CAP Zone' for the area 2-3 hexes around it and able to defend other locations according to priorities.
This could be impossible to implement, but it would have made the air war a lot more realistic if you add all the other improvements that will be incorporated in AE.

We do now allow LRCAP by a % of a Unit vice the Stock 100% LRCAP. THe remainder not on LRCAP can be set to Normal CAP over their base or set to rest by leaving CAP set to 0%.

So theoretically you could set 3 different units from the same base to LRCAP and give them three different geographic LRCAP targets. Then use a smattering of each to defend the home Airfield.

Pretty cool, I know...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 523

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/17/2008 10:57:11 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

We do now allow LRCAP by a % of a Unit vice the Stock 100% LRCAP. THe remainder not on LRCAP can be set to Normal CAP over their base or set to rest by leaving CAP set to 0%.

So theoretically you could set 3 different units from the same base to LRCAP and give them three different geographic LRCAP targets. Then use a smattering of each to defend the home Airfield.

Pretty cool, I know...

[sarcasm]Yeah but you can't set three different parts of the same unit to LRCAP three different bases...

[/sarcasm]

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 524

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/17/2008 10:57:31 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

IMO, AF damage models are too simplistic. No matter what size, 1-10, they are viewed as a single entity. I'd change it so that each numerical increment is a seperate entity (lvl 10 airfield has ten actual seperate airfields). As such, each lvl has to be knocked out, not just a single airfield that happens to have a size 10 capability. Added to this, the AF's levels do not get smacked from the highest to lowest, but can take damage simultaneously (ie Rabaul is a lvl 9 AF...after a B-17 strike the damage might look like this 1: 50% runway, 12% service; 2: 2% runway, 41% service) Knockout one level, it becomes a lvl 8 field until repaired, not a smouldering ruin as we have now.

This should make AFs much more resilient to both air and bombardment attacks.

This was discussed and a design document was written, but ended up OTS...

Maybe later...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 525

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/17/2008 11:00:30 PM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Ron I think you have something there, but breaking an AF into singles is too much. After all, the larger aircraft need bigger runways - not more of them! [If it takes one woman 9 months to have a baby, how many women does it take to have a baby in 1 month? ]

Maybe the same idea but break it into some non-linear model. Just throwing out numbers for discussion:

AF Size______# Entities

1______________1
2______________1
3______________1
4______________2
5______________2
6______________3
7______________3
8______________4
9______________4
10_____________5

As I said, these are just starting number suggestions.

Part of the design doc went as far as to allow the player to designate or assign the total value of the AF as a combination of 1s, 2, 4, or whatever size AFs he wanted. So you could have lots of small to medium AFs (ie. diespersed) or one or two larger. Even one GINORMOUS one.

Got to be complicated, so it was shelved.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 526

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/17/2008 11:01:14 PM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

The dutch problem is being addressed. I thought Thomas answered this a while back...

Does this mean that dates for upgrading aircraft for Dutch and UK are being debated/looked at or will they be the same?

Thanks.

EDIT: Sorry Ian, if the latter was directed at me, I skimmed through most of the thread but didn't see anything mentioned about upgrade dates for Dutch and UK.

< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 1/17/2008 11:02:51 PM >

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 527

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/18/2008 12:07:59 AM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

The dutch problem is being addressed. I thought Thomas answered this a while back...

Does this mean that dates for upgrading aircraft for Dutch and UK are being debated/looked at or will they be the same?

Thanks.

EDIT: Sorry Ian, if the latter was directed at me, I skimmed through most of the thread but didn't see anything mentioned about upgrade dates for Dutch and UK.

I'm afraid I'll have to defer to Thomas...

He may not have refered to dates...

< Message edited by TheElf -- 1/18/2008 12:08:55 AM >

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 528

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/18/2008 12:10:37 AM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

... serviceability ratings ...

So the database now has a serviceability rating for each aircraft model?

quote:

There is also the new notion that A/C fatigue life will mean they actually age and force replacement or cause ops losses. But these factors take time to become evident in a game.

Does this mean that the life-time (flights) of each individual aircraft is tracked to influence the chance of an ops loss of that aircraft?

Yes

and...

Basically

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 529

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/18/2008 2:05:07 AM

spence

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

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Not sure if this belongs here or in the Naval Thread.

The IJ Player commonly forms the a/c-capable riff-raff of the IJN (Hosho and Taiyo representing the historical epitome of riff-raff) into something called the mini-KB which also quite commonly raises he!! in some corner of the map and although not quite up to a pitched battle with an equal number of US CVs is quite capable of dealing with the RN fleet carriers and inflicting serious harm to US CVs. Such capabilities for these ships and the airgroups assigned to them are IRL pretty much a IJ wetdream but I suppose in the interest of allowing creative strategy....

The USN had CVEs which IRL carried out serious missions. But for some reason the pilots in the airgroups assigned to them start off with experience that is 20-30 points below the standard for the time frame. Perhaps the pilots who drew CVE duty were not the cream of the crop but they were not the washouts either. Lacking any historical evidence that the pilots assigned to CVE duty were sub-par I think that they should just draw from the same experience pool for the year the ship enters play.

One could argue that that couldn't be true because they were flying from CVEs. Much smaller and more difficult to operate from...

But I am having a hard time detecting a question in this post...

Fair enough. What justification is there for assigning USN CVE air group pilots experience levels in the 30's and 40's when the standard USN pilot experience is 60-70?

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 530

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/18/2008 2:06:43 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

We do now allow LRCAP by a % of a Unit vice the Stock 100% LRCAP. THe remainder not on LRCAP can be set to Normal CAP over their base or set to rest by leaving CAP set to 0%.

So theoretically you could set 3 different units from the same base to LRCAP and give them three different geographic LRCAP targets. Then use a smattering of each to defend the home Airfield.

Pretty cool, I know...

OMG, I've been advocating this since Alpha! Right ON!!!!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 531

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/18/2008 2:07:34 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

It is only the replenishment groups that are assigned 30xp pilots and it is a real paiin.

Its supposed to be because they are just ferry pilots but as we all know what actually happens is thoase pilots replace combat losses diluting your CV Groups

PITA

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 532

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/18/2008 2:08:27 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Ron I think you have something there, but breaking an AF into singles is too much. After all, the larger aircraft need bigger runways - not more of them! [If it takes one woman 9 months to have a baby, how many women does it take to have a baby in 1 month? ]

Maybe the same idea but break it into some non-linear model. Just throwing out numbers for discussion:

AF Size______# Entities

1______________1
2______________1
3______________1
4______________2
5______________2
6______________3
7______________3
8______________4
9______________4
10_____________5

As I said, these are just starting number suggestions.

Part of the design doc went as far as to allow the player to designate or assign the total value of the AF as a combination of 1s, 2, 4, or whatever size AFs he wanted. So you could have lots of small to medium AFs (ie. diespersed) or one or two larger. Even one GINORMOUS one.

Got to be complicated, so it was shelved.

But my approach seems infinitely simpler.

And gets the job done.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 533

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/18/2008 2:30:55 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
Fair enough. What justification is there for assigning USN CVE air group pilots experience levels in the 30's and 40's when the standard USN pilot experience is 60-70?

Historically none. In the game? Because it hurts the Allies and helps Japan.

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 534

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/18/2008 9:06:50 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

" Meaning serviceability ratings should eventually take their toll on more complex a/c. "

I really like this, but it begs a question: will more experienced or better equipped aviation support units do better at repairing damaged aircraft? Or will aviation support still be just aviation support - only the number of squads matters?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 535

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/18/2008 10:20:33 AM

rockmedic109

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline

" Meaning serviceability ratings should eventually take their toll on more complex a/c. "

Will we get the serviceability rating, or will it be one of the hidden numbers of the game?

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 536

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/18/2008 11:10:37 AM

TheElf

Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

" Meaning serviceability ratings should eventually take their toll on more complex a/c. "

I really like this, but it begs a question: will more experienced or better equipped aviation support units do better at repairing damaged aircraft? Or will aviation support still be just aviation support - only the number of squads matters?

Theoretically yes. Lower FAT and Higher MOR should also help...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 537

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/18/2008 1:30:54 PM

moose1999

Posts: 788
Joined: 10/26/2006
Status: offline

TheElf wrote:

quote:

There are some other things thrown in like damage from a round of combat being retained from one phase, and one turn to another. That was not happening in stock.

While I principally like the realism of this, won't it just add to the already over-bloody air-combat?

< Message edited by briny_norman -- 1/18/2008 1:31:50 PM >

_____________________________

regards,

Briny

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 538

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/18/2008 1:38:04 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

" Meaning serviceability ratings should eventually take their toll on more complex a/c. "

I really like this, but it begs a question: will more experienced or better equipped aviation support units do better at repairing damaged aircraft? Or will aviation support still be just aviation support - only the number of squads matters?

Theoretically yes. Lower FAT and Higher MOR should also help...

Both are very important. So are adequate supplies and leadership. The main constraints on number of sorties generated are aircrew fatigue, maintenance fatigue, supplies/ammo/fuel, and the condition of the aircraft. Leadership and morale are very important in sustaining the effort.

_____________________________

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 539

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/18/2008 7:03:05 PM

Yakface

Posts: 846
Joined: 8/5/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

No. No more details to give out. If you want to ask a specific question a bout a detail you are interested in I can make an attempt.

OK I suppose I'm asking whether it's true that the bloodiness of the air-combat is going to be reduced and if so, by what method (reduced chance of aircraft finding each other, reduced chance of hitting, reduced chance of a hit destroying etc)

The reason I'm concerned me is best given in an example:

A) if you take an example of say 20 fighters escorting 60 bombers to bomb a base opposed by 40 fighters on CAP. Lets say this results in the 20 escorts going down with 20 bombers vs 20 destroyed fighters from the CAP. The bombers destroy 20 aircraft on the ground. 40 airframes lost on each side so lets call it a wash (going to ignore pilots as an unnecessary complication for example purposes)

B) Now lets say A2A casualties are reduced by 50%......results are now 10 escorts and 10 bombers destroyed vs 10 fighters on CAP, but still 20 on the ground - a win for the attacker. The balance of the game has been shifted towards the bomber simply becuase the part of the routine where the CAP does it's work has been marginalised. In fact it is worse.....becuase 25% more bombers got through, casualties on the ground will be 25.

Just keen to keep the sruggle for air superiority even between the side on the attack and the defence as it largely determines the pace of the war . Obviously the examples are simplistic, but if the A2A routuine is monkeyed with without adjusting the outcomes of the second part of the mission (base/port/ground attack/naval), you will inevitably shift the balance......and IMO not for the better.

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 540