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 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/18/2008 7:11:49 PM

TheElf

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

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.

Cannot speak to this yet as we are still testing Air Combat. Sorry.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Yakface)

Post #: 541

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/18/2008 7:51:52 PM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

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.

You'll see more flak in the game. Thus A2A results are not the only factor here (25% more bombers getting through does not automatically mean 25% more planes destroyed on the ground). But everything is still in the testing stage.

(in reply to Yakface)

Post #: 542

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/18/2008 9:36:40 PM

Andy Mac

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

As K said attacking at low level or even medium level is going to be painfull against prepared targets.

By seperating a lot of AA from base forces (different amounts in different nations) and reducing the amount in stock that were fortress bound and giving a historic ORBAT you end up with a lot of low level AAMG's, a lot of 20mm - 40mm type weapons and a lot of heavy AA.

All of which is deployable and is dangerous.

By seperating it from a lot of base forces early war flak traps like Singapore are less likely but by mid 42 all sides will have dedicated AA units in numbers

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 543

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 1/18/2008 9:59:31 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

Some questions:

1. Will different aircraft type have a bonus depending on the type of target?

For example the great squawk about 4e bombers vs. shipping. So maybe use something like�
a. 2e bombers using bombs on NavAtk = +0 accuracy
b. Dive-bombers using bombs on NavAtk = +10% accuracy
c. Torpedo bombers using bombs on NavAtk = +5% accuracy
d. Fighter bombers using bombs on NavAtk = -5% accuracy
e. Fighters using bombs on NavAtk = -10% accuracy
e. 4e bombers using bombs on NavAtk = -20% accuracy
Similar tables could be created depending on the plane type an mission, to simulate the suitability of the aircraft to the mission.

2. Will there be anything done to simplify the altitude model? Frankly, I think it�s something that you have very little control of (as a defender) that that has a disproportionate affect on combat. For examples:
a. You never really know what altitude to set you CAP at given the range of 100� to 36,000�.
b. Transports can drop their paras at 24,000� to minimize flak (also impossible for defending CAP to guess the incoming altitude). Except for the fact that they generally only flew at about 2,000� for para drops because the name of the game is to get on the ground quickly. Maybe force �all- para drops to always go at 2k or some static altitude.
c. Kamis or LBA flying at 33,000� to avoid CAP and flak.
d. Dive-bombers/Fighters attack at 2k, but you have no idea what altitude to set you CAP at to intercept bombers at their original altitude..
e. Torpedo bombers attack at 200�, but you have no idea what altitude to set your CAP at to intercept bombers at their original altitude.
f. If you set your CAP at 16k (an average altitude), you are often out of luck because next turn the bombers come in at 24k or 6k.
Therefore, would it be possible to have certain missions NOT dependent on altitude? Example missions not altitude dependent � CAP, LRCAP, Transport, Recon, Sweep.

3. Will the ASW mission finally have a purpose? Halving it�s range really kills it. Maybe eliminate it all together?

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 544

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 1/18/2008 10:51:16 PM

bradfordkay

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

In my PBEM vs Chez, the combat reports almost never report the altitude of the aircraft involved in combat. Is this because we have in-game combat reports turned off or is this normal in PBEM games?

Either way, will this be rectified in AE? It would be nice to know at what altitude air combat is occurring, so that I can improve my performance.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 545

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/19/2008 3:44:10 AM

witpqs

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

Yakface, I will point out a dissenting view - I want the result to be realistic for whatever the combat in question is. If they wind up being balanced, fine, if unbalanced, fine. I presume that in real life few such encounters would actually be balanced. Just IMO.

(in reply to Yakface)

Post #: 546

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 1/19/2008 3:49:53 AM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Some questions:

1. Will different aircraft type have a bonus depending on the type of target?

For example the great squawk about 4e bombers vs. shipping. So maybe use something like�
a. 2e bombers using bombs on NavAtk = +0 accuracy
b. Dive-bombers using bombs on NavAtk = +10% accuracy
Torpedo bombers using bombs on NavAtk = +5% accuracy
d. Fighter bombers using bombs on NavAtk = -5% accuracy
e. Fighters using bombs on NavAtk = -10% accuracy
e. 4e bombers using bombs on NavAtk = -20% accuracy
Similar tables could be created depending on the plane type an mission, to simulate the suitability of the aircraft to the mission.

Great idea - how about having a field for individual planes instead of a table for plane types? That way aircraft that has superier targeting equipment (bomb sights and whatever else they had) could get specific ratings?

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 547

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/19/2008 5:57:14 AM

Yakface

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Yakface, I will point out a dissenting view - I want the result to be realistic for whatever the combat in question is. If they wind up being balanced, fine, if unbalanced, fine. I presume that in real life few such encounters would actually be balanced. Just IMO.

Not sure that we are in fact disagreeing. You see I already think the amount of damage done to airfields by boming is on the high side, in the same way that A2A is bloody. But in the absence of definitive evidence one way or the other, I'd favour maintaining the balance of the game as it is.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 548

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 1/19/2008 12:24:44 PM

TheElf

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

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Some questions:

quote:

1. Will different aircraft type have a bonus depending on the type of target?

For example the great squawk about 4e bombers vs. shipping. So maybe use something like�
a. 2e bombers using bombs on NavAtk = +0 accuracy
b. Dive-bombers using bombs on NavAtk = +10% accuracy
c. Torpedo bombers using bombs on NavAtk = +5% accuracy
d. Fighter bombers using bombs on NavAtk = -5% accuracy
e. Fighters using bombs on NavAtk = -10% accuracy
e. 4e bombers using bombs on NavAtk = -20% accuracy
Similar tables could be created depending on the plane type an mission, to simulate the suitability of the aircraft to the mission.

We did not touch air to ground accuracy. This is SAIEW.

quote:

2. Will there be anything done to simplify the altitude model? Frankly, I think it�s something that you have very little control of (as a defender) that that has a disproportionate affect on combat. For examples:

This is true in the absence of RADAR. With RADAR CAP will strive to climb to a position of advantage. Airborne CAP will already be aloft (the size of which will depend on your settings) and scrambled CAP will measure Time to climb to an optimum altitude against a Time to Target once a raid is detected. The better the Early Warning the better the performance of CAP

quote:

a. You never really know what altitude to set you CAP at given the range of 100� to 36,000�.

See above. Based on the performance of you CAP aircraft I would pick it's band with the best MVR rating. Above that you are chancing an encounter with an enemy that outperforms you.
Better hope you meet with an altitude advantage.

quote:

b. Transports can drop their paras at 24,000� to minimize flak (also impossible for defending CAP to guess the incoming altitude). Except for the fact that they generally only flew at about 2,000� for para drops because the name of the game is to get on the ground quickly. Maybe force �all- para drops to always go at 2k or some static altitude.

Interesting idea...

quote:

c. Kamis or LBA flying at 33,000� to avoid CAP and flak.

They won't avoid the Flak they have to fly through during their attack. LBA will be ineffective.

quote:

d. Dive-bombers/Fighters attack at 2k, but you have no idea what altitude to set you CAP at to intercept bombers at their original altitude..

Technichally DBs onlr release at 2k'. Their attack starts at their ingress altitude. I would set your CAP to it's best altitude based on it performance, and hope your RADAR helps.

quote:

e. Torpedo bombers attack at 200�, but you have no idea what altitude to set your CAP at to intercept bombers at their original altitude.

TBs are still triggered by the 5k' altitude or lower. Set you CAP around 5-6k'. Hope your RADAR helps.

quote:

f. If you set your CAP at 16k (an average altitude), you are often out of luck because next turn the bombers come in at 24k or 6k.
Therefore, would it be possible to have certain missions NOT dependent on altitude? Example missions not altitude dependent � CAP, LRCAP, Transport, Recon, Sweep.

This would obviate our entire Altitude system. The idea was to remaove a fair bit of abstraction, and inject some reality. CAP will still benefit from multiple CAPs at different altitudes and of course that RADAR thinga-ma-bob. If you are nervous about a ceratin altitude being uncovered get more CAP

quote:

3. Will the ASW mission finally have a purpose? Halving it�s range really kills it. Maybe eliminate it all together?

ASW is pretty effective right now, though we are still in test. The naval search routine which includes ASW has been tweaked a bit and will likely be more realistic.

-F-

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 549

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 1/19/2008 2:41:52 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

So you're saying if a hex has radar (and I presume some roll involved), that your altitude setting for CAP doesn't really matter?

That's interesting.

Please to confirm.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 550

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 1/19/2008 4:18:59 PM

spence

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

quote:

quote:

b. Transports can drop their paras at 24,000� to minimize flak (also impossible for defending CAP to guess the incoming altitude). Except for the fact that they generally only flew at about 2,000� for para drops because the name of the game is to get on the ground quickly. Maybe force �all- para drops to always go at 2k or some static altitude.
Interesting idea...

From that altitude the RL probability of an effective force landing in the drop hex is zero. From that altitude, at least 99% of the time those pesky Nipponese paras should self-destruct without even an opportunity to attack if the game is to reflect reality.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 551

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/19/2008 4:20:50 PM

spence

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

quote:

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.

This then is the answer?

(in reply to Yakface)

Post #: 552

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 1/20/2008 1:45:07 AM

TheElf

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

So you're saying if a hex has radar (and I presume some roll involved), that your altitude setting for CAP doesn't really matter?

That's interesting.

Please to confirm.

-F-

No, it still matters because your Airborne CAP will be patrolling at that altitude, and depending on the detection of the raid and it's altitude your ground CAP may not have enough time to scramble and climb if the raid is high enough or the detection was poor. So a smart altitude selection will still be relevant to keep your standing patrol in position.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 553

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/20/2008 3:19:18 AM

timtom

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

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.

This then is the answer?

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom
Please direct questions pertaining the OOB of carrier- and other shipbased aviation to the Navy Team. I won't repeat this. For at least the next 24 hours.

:)

< Message edited by timtom -- 1/20/2008 3:20:29 AM >

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 554

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/20/2008 3:23:13 AM

timtom

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

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...

Sorry, guys, for taking my sweet time to answer, not that it's any good: The best I can do at this junction is to say that we're looking at different options regarding this issue.

< Message edited by timtom -- 1/20/2008 3:30:13 AM >

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 555

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/20/2008 5:18:37 AM

Knavey

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

Elf...did you say Aircraft ASW is working correctly right now?

I might agree that Naval Search ASW works, but the ASW button has resulted in Zippo for me even though I have 3 subs parked 1 hex outside of Thursday Island. over 100 bombers on ASW did nothing to them for over a week (except maybe to spot them).

_____________________________

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

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 556

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/20/2008 6:59:44 AM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

Well, Elf, I'll just have to respectfully disagree with regarding the effectiveness of CAP and altitude selection. THe problem with WitP is that it is "unknowable" to the defender and that results are even minor variations in altitude can have significant affect (or reduction) of losses. Setting your cap at 16k vs. 20k can make a big difference in stopping enemy planes coming in at 16k. And all an attacker has to do is bounce back-n-forth between 16-24-8k, and the defensive CAP is entirely reactionary, it's ability to stop attackers can be strongly reduced by just buming the alt around. Furhtermore, if you want to intercept those torpedo bombers, CAP does NOT intercept them at 200', you must be set to whatever their inbound altitude is, but nobody ever bothers to check their altimeter and report back even what alt they were inbound at (same for dive-bombers). Your CAP does NOT enage at 200' or 2000', it egnages at teh 28k or whatever inbound alt is (but again, it's unknowable, so you end up chasing the wind most of the time).

That's disappointing.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Knavey)

Post #: 557

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/20/2008 10:33:14 AM

TheElf

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

Well, Elf, I'll just have to respectfully disagree with regarding the effectiveness of CAP and altitude selection. THe problem with WitP is that it is "unknowable" to the defender and that results are even minor variations in altitude can have significant affect (or reduction) of losses. Setting your cap at 16k vs. 20k can make a big difference in stopping enemy planes coming in at 16k. And all an attacker has to do is bounce back-n-forth between 16-24-8k, and the defensive CAP is entirely reactionary, it's ability to stop attackers can be strongly reduced by just buming the alt around. Furhtermore, if you want to intercept those torpedo bombers, CAP does NOT intercept them at 200', you must be set to whatever their inbound altitude is, but nobody ever bothers to check their altimeter and report back even what alt they were inbound at (same for dive-bombers). Your CAP does NOT enage at 200' or 2000', it egnages at teh 28k or whatever inbound alt is (but again, it's unknowable, so you end up chasing the wind most of the time).

That's disappointing.

-F-

How is overloading the CAP in the game very different from the way it was IRL. What you are describing is what would happen to a single CAP responsible for a 60nm hexagonal area apporached at multiple altitudes from different Axis' of attack.

Even with GCI it would be a tall order to be in position to respond to all comers. I'm not sure your expectations for the performance of CAP are fair.

That said we are talking about apples and Oranges. you are talking from experience with WitP. I am speaking from the design of the CAP routine in AE.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 558

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/20/2008 10:40:39 AM

TheElf

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

ORIGINAL: Knavey

quote:

Elf...did you say Aircraft ASW is working correctly right now?

That is a fairly nebulous question. Define correctly.

quote:

I might agree that Naval Search ASW works, but the ASW button has resulted in Zippo for me even though I have 3 subs parked 1 hex outside of Thursday Island. over 100 bombers on ASW did nothing to them for over a week (except maybe to spot them).

I can't speak to the effectiveness of ASW in WitP. All I can tell you is we have addressed the search function of AE.

It also seems you are assuming that detection is 99% of destruction. Have you considered the possible EXP of those two sub captains? Or perhaps the EXP of you Air units? Are they B-17 units or are they units that specialized in ASW? What has the weather been like? How successful should a plane not equipped w/ depth charges be at hitting a sub that is underwater and not visible even though it was previuously spotted?

I don't know the specifics of your case but from my experience with the code there are more factors involved than just detection.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to Knavey)

Post #: 559

Aviation Support - 1/20/2008 3:14:47 PM

resconq

Posts: 21
Joined: 1/15/2008
Status: offline

Will 250 still be the magic number whereby if a base has 250 or more aviation support squads, you can theoretically base an unlimited number of aircraft there? That always seemed gamey to me.

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 560

RE: Aviation Support - 1/20/2008 3:53:24 PM

herwin

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: resconq

Will 250 still be the magic number whereby if a base has 250 or more aviation support squads, you can theoretically base an unlimited number of aircraft there?� That always seemed gamey to me.

Doesn't make much sense, either. Air operations models are like econometric models. The outputs of your bases are sorties, which reflect a lot of factors: facilities, fuel, ammo and airframe availability, parts availability, ground crew and maintenance crew availability and fatigue, morale, leadership, aircrew availability and fatigue, and weather. Probably a multiplicative model (sorties generated is proportional to the nth root of the product of n factors) is as good as any and better than most. The only outside considerations would be overtime worked (whether you're surging or not) and weather (giving the aircrew a break and catching up on the backlog). If you double your sorties on a given day, you need to put in two extra days of work to get back to a good base state. If you triple your sorties on a given day, you need to work five extra days to recover. If you can sustain seven days of work per seven days, you can either generate Nx7 sorties spread uniformly, Nx6 sorties, doubling one of the days, Nx5 sorties, doubling two of the days or tripling one day, or Nx4 sorties, doubling three of the days. Well-run bases always had a maintenance backlog, simply because that allowed efficient use of the resources available. YMMV.

_____________________________

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 resconq)

Post #: 561

RE: Aviation Support - 1/20/2008 8:14:11 PM

Cathartes

Posts: 2155
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

I think a part of what Feinder is getting at, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, the game never reveals which altitude a sweep or a torpedo attack comes in at. It's forever a secret (other than the standard torpedo attack alt. itself, which doesn't matter for CAP in WITP because the CAP hits the approach altitude), so you have to always guess, and in reality, after the fact, it would not be a secret, and you should be able to have past knowldedge of your enemy's pattern. You do for airbase/ground attacks, why not sweep and torpedo attacks?

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 562

RE: Aviation Support - 1/20/2008 8:19:44 PM

witpqs

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

Even for airbase and ground attacks I think the information is only presented sometimes.

(in reply to Cathartes)

Post #: 563

RE: Aviation Support - 1/21/2008 2:35:31 AM

Grotius

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

Elf, I'm also curious whether you're changing anything about the 250-aviation-support "magic number".

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 564

RE: Aviation Support - 1/21/2008 2:45:13 AM

bradfordkay

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Even for airbase and ground attacks I think the information is only presented sometimes.

In games vs the AI, it is always presented. I truly wish it was in PBEM as well. It's not like the pilots have no idea as to what altitude they are flying at during combat.

< Message edited by bradfordkay -- 1/21/2008 2:46:18 AM >

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 565

RE: Aviation Support - 1/21/2008 8:17:26 AM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

quote:

I think a part of what Feinder is getting at, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, the game never reveals which altitude a sweep or a torpedo attack comes in at. It's forever a secret (other than the standard torpedo attack alt. itself, which doesn't matter for CAP in WITP because the CAP hits the approach altitude), so you have to always guess, and in reality, after the fact, it would not be a secret, and you should be able to have past knowldedge of your enemy's pattern. You do for airbase/ground attacks, why not sweep and torpedo attacks?

Precisely. Torp and dive-bombing attacks.

Saying a torp bomber comes in at 200' all the time is pointless. I -know- it drops at 200' (and DBs at 2000'). I want to know what alt I need to be setting my CAP at.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Cathartes)

Post #: 566

RE: Aviation Support - 1/24/2008 1:12:25 AM

saj42

Posts: 1125
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Somerset, England
Status: offline

In post 19 to this thread 12 pilot experience ratings are identified.

When one selects 'get pilot' on the air unit screen does one get a suitably 'qualified' pilot for the type of unit or just a random pilot from the pool???

It really would NOT be much fun to get a pilot for a fighter unit to find he's primarily trained in ASW or Transport

and doesn't know what a gunsight is

_____________________________

Banner by rogueusmc

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 567

RE: Aviation Support - 1/24/2008 8:01:14 AM

ChezDaJez

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyho!

In post 19 to this thread�12 pilot experience ratings are�identified.

When one selects 'get pilot' on the air unit screen does one get a suitably 'qualified' pilot for the type of unit or just a random pilot from the pool???

It really would NOT be much fun to get a pilot for a fighter unit to find he's primarily trained in ASW or Transport �and doesn't know what a gunsight is

Hey, us ASW guys know how to use gunsights too! It's just that sometimes we're aren't sure which side to look through!

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 saj42)

Post #: 568

RE: Aviation Support - 1/24/2008 2:20:49 PM

Ron Saueracker

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

I understand that barrage balloons, torpedo net defences and mine tenders are now in AE. Seeing as AE is attempting to more closely model historical capabilities, are we now going to see the elimination of non tactical (1E) torpedo plane attacks in ports/harbours? Not one historical example of this could I find in WW2 but it is a daily occurence in the game.

Thanks.

Looking and sounding mmmmmmmmaaaarvelous gents.

By the way...I'm talking harbours with docks, slips, cranes, nooks, crannies, shallow depth, narrow channels, boom and net defences etc...not Sealark Channel off Guadalcanal. Two different things entirely.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 1/24/2008 2:23:39 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 569

RE: Aviation Support - 1/24/2008 2:28:31 PM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Seeing as AE is attempting to more closely model historical capabilities, are we now going to see the elimination of non tactical (1E) torpedo plane attacks in ports/harbours? Not one historical example of this could I find in WW2 but it is a daily occurence in the game.

Well, you may at least see the elimination of torpedo planes set to port attack because you'll see more AA units and guns in the game (not in the initial PH attack, of course).

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 570