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: Aviation Support

 
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: Aviation Support Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Aviation Support - 1/26/2008 6:11:06 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Shark7

If I recall correctly, didn't the Japanese actually modify their Type 91 Torpedos so that they could use them at PH? I seem to remember something about them adding some type of fins to prevent them from diving as deep once released, cause that was the only way a torpedo was going to work in water as shallow as a port.


Yes - you are right on the money. Wooden fins that broke away in the water.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 601
RE: Aviation Support - 1/26/2008 7:00:11 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline 		El Cid, take it elsewhere. You are spamming an AE discussion thread after I clearly asked the debate to be moved elsewhere. You have hundreds of you own threads. This one belongs to the AE Air Team.

Start another one if you must.

Thank you.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 602
RE: Aviation Support - 1/26/2008 7:37:26 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline 		It's more complicated than indicated. In port, many ship berths are protected, by the narrowness or shallowness of the channel or (later) by nets (baffles). At PH, only about half the BBs were even vulnerable to torpedo attack, and at Taranto, the RN used modified torpedos dropped from a very low altitude. See this paper. This and the attack on the Z Force should probably be treated as start-of-war surprise.

_____________________________

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 Shark7)
Post #: 603
RE: Aviation Support - 1/26/2008 10:13:07 PM   
timtom


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

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Which leads into this question:

With all these new stock additions, will there still be ample slots for the modders amoung us to add additional a/c for all sides?

Keeping in mind that the stock WITP didn't really give the Japanese side a lot of extra slots to work with, one has to be willing to give to gain...I'd like to avoid this if possible.



Several hundred slots are reserved for modders to toy with. None of these are hardcoded for a particular service.


_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 604
RE: Aviation Support - 1/26/2008 11:13:27 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline 		This is just a minor visual thing, but will No.s 605, 607 & 615 RAF be named No.6xy RAuxAF Sqn* instead? It's just 'chrome' really, but I have too much time on my hands right now

* With numbers instead of xy, before someone points that out

< Message edited by Dixie -- 1/26/2008 11:14:27 PM >

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 605
RE: Aviation Support - 1/27/2008 1:16:52 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Folks, a general questions on AE - I'm aware of the differences in the WITP manual between fighters and fighter-bombers (FB's get a bit better bombing ability (=accuracy?), but FB's also get a bit less air to air ability).

How, if at all, does AE treat fighters and fighter-bombers differently from each other?

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 606
RE: Aviation Support - 1/29/2008 3:41:36 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Folks, a general questions on AE - I'm aware of the differences in the WITP manual between fighters and fighter-bombers (FB's get a bit better bombing ability (=accuracy?), but FB's also get a bit less air to air ability).

How, if at all, does AE treat fighters and fighter-bombers differently from each other?


Any idea about this?

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 607
RE: Aviation Support - 1/29/2008 4:35:21 PM   
timtom


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

ORIGINAL: Dixie

This is just a minor visual thing, but will No.s 605, 607 & 615 RAF be named No.6xy RAuxAF Sqn* instead? It's just 'chrome' really, but I have too much time on my hands right now

* With numbers instead of xy, before someone points that out


AFAIK, AAF sqds didn't use the RAuxAF designation during the war. I believe the RAuxAF didn't become "royal" until late '47.

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 608
RE: Aviation Support - 1/29/2008 4:37:48 PM   
timtom


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Folks, a general questions on AE - I'm aware of the differences in the WITP manual between fighters and fighter-bombers (FB's get a bit better bombing ability (=accuracy?), but FB's also get a bit less air to air ability).

How, if at all, does AE treat fighters and fighter-bombers differently from each other?


Any idea about this?


Same as stock, I'm afraid.

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 609
RE: Aviation Support - 1/30/2008 12:36:23 PM   
TheElf


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

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Folks, a general questions on AE - I'm aware of the differences in the WITP manual between fighters and fighter-bombers (FB's get a bit better bombing ability (=accuracy?), but FB's also get a bit less air to air ability).

How, if at all, does AE treat fighters and fighter-bombers differently from each other?


Any idea about this?


Same as stock, I'm afraid.

This is not exactly true. Fighter bombers are identical to Fighters except when they are performing the FB mission. When ordered to Attack AFs, ground units, etc. and if attacked they will check for jettisoning ordnance and engage the CAP at a temporary and slight defensive disadvantage.

Not ALL FBs will automatically jett their load and defend, only those flights that are attacked. So, not escorting your FBs will chance mission failure if there is no barrier (escort) between them and the CAP.


_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 610
Attack Missions - 1/30/2008 1:16:34 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline 		A relevant point is that modern USN light strike missions are usually unescorted--the aircraft can defend themselves effectively even though they're classified as light bombers. Their pilots are fighter-trained. I'm fairly sure this self-defence capability goes back to the early days of carrier aviation in the USN. Does the air-to-air model take this into account?

_____________________________

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 TheElf)
Post #: 611
RE: Attack Missions - 1/30/2008 3:48:38 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		Will AE give night fighters a night CAP ability?  Currently I can get around that by putting them on night naval attack with 90% CAP.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 612
RE: Aviation Support - 1/30/2008 5:11:15 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: TheElf

This is not exactly true. Fighter bombers are identical to Fighters except when they are performing the FB mission. When ordered to Attack AFs, ground units, etc. and if attacked they will check for jettisoning ordnance and engage the CAP at a temporary and slight defensive disadvantage.

Not ALL FBs will automatically jett their load and defend, only those flights that are attacked. So, not escorting your FBs will chance mission failure if there is no barrier (escort) between them and the CAP.


Thanks for the response! I'm surprised by part of your answer, so I just want to confirm - no air to air penalty when an FB is acting strictly as a fighter (meaning CAP or Escort)? Thanks in advance.

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 613
RE: Aviation Support - 1/30/2008 6:13:42 PM   
herwin

 

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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

This is not exactly true. Fighter bombers are identical to Fighters except when they are performing the FB mission. When ordered to Attack AFs, ground units, etc. and if attacked they will check for jettisoning ordnance and engage the CAP at a temporary and slight defensive disadvantage.

Not ALL FBs will automatically jett their load and defend, only those flights that are attacked. So, not escorting your FBs will chance mission failure if there is no barrier (escort) between them and the CAP.


Thanks for the response! I'm surprised by part of your answer, so I just want to confirm - no air to air penalty when an FB is acting strictly as a fighter (meaning CAP or Escort)? Thanks in advance.


There shouldn't be any.

_____________________________

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 witpqs)
Post #: 614
RE: Aviation Support - 1/30/2008 6:52:17 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

The relevant point is that modern USN light strike missions are usually unescorted--the aircraft can defend themselves effectively even though they're classified as light bombers.


That was also the case for USN and USAAF f/bs in WW2. Indeed, the whole distinction between a fighter and a fighter-bomber is one that WitP uses to differentiate between missions. During WW2 there was no distinction between "fighters" and "fighter bombers" -- at least not in the USN and USAAF. All fighters had a ground attack capability with hard points for bombs or other ordnance. All fighter pilots were trained intensively in air to air combat and also somewhat in ground attack. As power plants improved, the ordnance load-outs of Allied fighters increased, giving them a much more robust ground attack capability, and leading to more diverse mission capability for allied fighter types.

quote:

There shouldn't be any.


Exactly so.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 615
RE: Aviation Support - 1/31/2008 2:18:02 AM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline 		Not sure if it's been asked or not but probably has(didn't find in quick search) but will Op losses be increased? The book I'm reading talks of just how high the op losses were for missions sometimes due to the various causes. One mission, forget if it was Coral Sea, Midway or Kwajalein raid talked of a dozen or more lost a/c to op losses of pilots getting lost, mech breakdowns, etc out of only a few dozen a/c in the raid so that'd be almost 10-20% just in op losses not to combat reasons.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 616
RE: Aviation Support - 1/31/2008 8:53:06 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		Will we see more failed to find air attacks against naval targets? You almost never see this in Witp. Even today it's not easy to find a single ship at sea.



(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 617
RE: Aviation Support - 1/31/2008 11:45:43 PM   
Feinder


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

Will we see more failed to find air attacks against naval targets? You almost never see this in Witp. Even today it's not easy to find a single ship at sea.


I'll second this.  From my resources, there were many days were

TF58 (staggerinly huge as it was) spots enemy search aircraft on radar.
CAP vectored to intercept.
CAP was unable to intercept.
Didn't matter anyway, because enemy search aircraft continues meandering away, and never spots the litterally hundreds of ships.

All within 60 miles (1 hex in WitP) of the coast.

Rest assured that would NEVER happen in WitP.

-F-

_____________________________

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


(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 618
RE: Aviation Support - 2/1/2008 11:22:07 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline 		Agreed, it should be more difficult to find a ship at sea. The sea is very, very big. :)

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 619
RE: Aviation Support - 2/2/2008 12:35:44 AM   
TheElf


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

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

This is not exactly true. Fighter bombers are identical to Fighters except when they are performing the FB mission. When ordered to Attack AFs, ground units, etc. and if attacked they will check for jettisoning ordnance and engage the CAP at a temporary and slight defensive disadvantage.

Not ALL FBs will automatically jett their load and defend, only those flights that are attacked. So, not escorting your FBs will chance mission failure if there is no barrier (escort) between them and the CAP.


Thanks for the response! I'm surprised by part of your answer, so I just want to confirm - no air to air penalty when an FB is acting strictly as a fighter (meaning CAP or Escort)? Thanks in advance.


There shouldn't be any.

When acting strictly as a fighter, there are no FB penalties. Even as a FB the MVR penalty is not necessarily a given. Depends on the situation.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 620
RE: Aviation Support - 2/2/2008 9:44:04 PM   
Cathartes

 

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

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Not sure if it's been asked or not but probably has(didn't find in quick search) but will Op losses be increased?


From the AE/WITP announcement:
Operational losses overall are now at a higher, more realistic level for the Pacific theater.

(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 621
RE: Aviation Support - 2/3/2008 7:50:13 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cathartes

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Not sure if it's been asked or not but probably has(didn't find in quick search) but will Op losses be increased?


From the AE/WITP announcement:
Operational losses overall are now at a higher, more realistic level for the Pacific theater.


Higher Op losses ?

In witp both Allies and Japan have way too many excess aircraft.

Higher Op losses I hope is to reflect the loss of aircraft due to aircraft that can't be repaired (replacement part shortages) and not higher pilot lost. Read anything about the flying tigers and you'll find out how fast they when through aircraft, yet had low pliot losses. They got new aircraft but very few spare parts, at times it took scraping two good aircraft to keep just 1 flying! The problems for Japan must have been worst due to not only supply shortages, but also fuel shortages.

The issue with Op losses is with Japans Naval pilots, Japan can lose more than 30 pilots due to op losses, no airforce in the world operated like this (operational losses exceeding replacement pilots). Japan had a shortages of carrier pilots but witp treats all naval pilots the same (transport, land based naval units, someone flying a glen off a sub, or other ship) the same as carrier pilots which is not correct)! Op losses should not exceed the number of replacement pilots otherwise the Japan's airforce just eats itself, they should include the loss of aircraft that have to be scraped due to replacement parts shortages.



(in reply to Cathartes)
Post #: 622
RE: Aviation Support - 2/4/2008 10:13:27 PM   
langley


Posts: 183
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Newbury, Berkshire, England.
Status: offline 		I take it we don't know any more about addictional aircraft that will be in this version!
Any ideas folks.

MJT

_____________________________

"My God, I hope you don't blame me for this. I had no idea where you were."
Air Vice-marshal Pulford upon the loss of "Force Z"

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 623
RE: Aviation Support - 2/5/2008 1:32:48 AM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cathartes

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Not sure if it's been asked or not but probably has(didn't find in quick search) but will Op losses be increased?


From the AE/WITP announcement:
Operational losses overall are now at a higher, more realistic level for the Pacific theater.


Thanks new it would be somewhere just didn't find it myself.

pad152 - op losses can be a/c only losses but there is a chance to lose pilot as well not sure how chance is determined but with higher op losses will come a chance for more pilot losses. Think of the # of losses due to training accidents & the instance I mentioned, all of the losses I was refering to where pilot losses mostly due to at the time of the war very little sub lifeguard missions were run.

(in reply to Cathartes)
Post #: 624
RE: Aviation Support - 2/5/2008 9:35:15 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline 		If you do onmap training in WITP as the Japanese, let´s say two hexes range with 300 aircraft every day then you will lose some 800-1000 aircraft a year just from doing this training. Don´t know if I´d like to see it being 3000 aircraft a year, from attacking an undefended target that is 2 hexes away. And it seems it´s like a 40:60 chance that you will lose your pilot too. So this will mean that you will lose at least 5 times your pilot replacements just from flying 2 hexes in perfect weather, crashing on a level 9 airfield. Of course, on map training will be not what it was, but that´s just an example of how op losses look like at the moment in my games.

If you increase op losses to "realistic" levels than perhaps everything else has to be changed also: damage done by aircraft, ability of ships to survive, time it takes to repair an airbase (the airfield can be repaired pretty fast, but I doubt all the hangars, barracks are built up in 2 hours)...

With the attack routines in WITP you just have to fly 5 times more missions than in real life (and WITP that would be 100% realistic would be soooo boring as there would just nothing happen most times on the whole map). If you suffer 5 times the losses then you will soon run out of aircraft. But with the damage routines, it seems you have to do 5 times the attacks to do the same damage than it was done most often in real life.

I´ve never read about 300 Allied bombers doing attacks on Rabaul every third day to keep the airfield closed. And this goes on and on...

_____________________________


(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 625
RE: Aviation Support - 2/5/2008 9:50:21 AM   
Ursa MAior

 

Posts: 1416
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Hungary, EU
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

quote:

Will we see more failed to find air attacks against naval targets? You almost never see this in Witp. Even today it's not easy to find a single ship at sea.


I'll second this. From my resources, there were many days were

TF58 (staggerinly huge as it was) spots enemy search aircraft on radar.
CAP vectored to intercept.
CAP was unable to intercept.
Didn't matter anyway, because enemy search aircraft continues meandering away, and never spots the litterally hundreds of ships.

All within 60 miles (1 hex in WitP) of the coast.

Rest assured that would NEVER happen in WitP.

-F-


Second to that but adding that in this case tf targeting and resource allocating routine should be upgraded. IMHO no one would like to see the whole deckload going after a secondary target (and not finding it) yet letting away a dmgd and defenceless CV.

Juts my 0,02 bucks.

_____________________________


Art by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 626
RE: Aviation Support - 2/5/2008 3:12:39 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Something I've not seen mentioned so far is whether or not we will stop seeing squadron fragmentation between targets, specifically those in seperate hexes. I'm pretty sure squadrons attacked as units, and were not divided up among multiple targets as WITP currently does.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Ursa MAior)
Post #: 627
RE: Aviation Support - 2/5/2008 5:30:50 PM   
treespider


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

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Something I've not seen mentioned so far is whether or not we will stop seeing squadron fragmentation between targets, specifically those in seperate hexes. I'm pretty sure squadrons attacked as units, and were not divided up among multiple targets as WITP currently does.



Interesting read - Fortress against the Sun....seems it happened more often than you would think.

_____________________________

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 Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 628
RE: Aviation Support - 2/5/2008 9:33:25 PM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Something I've not seen mentioned so far is whether or not we will stop seeing squadron fragmentation between targets, specifically those in seperate hexes. I'm pretty sure squadrons attacked as units, and were not divided up among multiple targets as WITP currently does.



Interesting read - Fortress against the Sun....seems it happened more often than you would think.


Like sending 2 P-38s to escort 18 4Es to Rabaul when 16 are available? Or 2 SBDs against a merchant 3 hexes away, 6 vs 2 merchies 2 hexes away and 8 vs 3 merchies 4 hexes away. Seems too "formula oriented" or something.

Boy...can't wait for AE to come out. Just got Carriers at War this morning and I'm already ho humming. I like large campaigns, these small battles just don't do it for me.


_____________________________





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

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 629
RE: Aviation Support - 2/6/2008 7:44:43 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Carriers At War was the first computer game I purchased, and I owned all the expansions to it. I happily ordered it as soon as Matrix and SSG released the new version, but after a couple of days of messing with it I haven't touched it since. In my book, nothing measures up to WITP...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 630
Page:   <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Aviation Support Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.266