RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups

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: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups

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: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups

Page: << < prev 47 48 [49] 50 51 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/4/2009 4:21:11 AM

TOMLABEL

Posts: 5116
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Alabama - ROLL TIDE!!!!!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

I blame the naval team...

Tomlabel is the resident Seahawk fanboy and I doubt he'll leave it alone :)

Thanks Timtom - and no I won't!

I pleaded this case, but to no avail!!!

If I were dead, I'd be rolling over in my grave!!!

OK - vent over...

Let's mod the sucker!!

I've got some artwork (but can't remember who I got it from..) Would the artist for the Seahawk please step forward!

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by TOMLABEL -- 8/4/2009 4:27:15 AM >

_____________________________

Art by the Rogue-USMC

WITP Admiral's Edition: Ship & Sub Art/Base Unit Art/Map Icon Art

"If destruction be our lot - it will come from within"...Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 1441

RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/4/2009 8:27:35 AM

DBS

Posts: 513
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS

Lastly, the Blenheim V comes on stream too late - currently Dec 42. 113 had already re-equipped with Vs by October 42. Given that the Mk V was available in squadron strength by June 42, I would suggest a start date in this game of say July or August 42, since it will take a little time to get enough replacements to convert a squadron.

Hmm, I have 113 Sqn receiving Mk V's from October and phasing the Mk IV's out by end December (from Jefford)

I accept that is quite probably correct - the two types were certainly operating side by side in 113 since there are photos of the two types together. But if Mk V production only starts in December, and is only at 8, you won't have enough Mk Vs to reequip 113 until mid Jan at the earliest. (Unless I am missing something?) Given that the game mechanisms don't allow mixed fleets within a sqn, that by June 42 the Air Ministry had already realised that the Mk V was not up to use in NW Europe and should be focused on the Med and the Far East, and that the aircraft is hardly a world beater anyway, I would tend to favour erring towards the earlier end of the availability window. Hardly a major issue I warrant.

David

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 1442

RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/4/2009 8:36:38 AM

DBS

Posts: 513
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline

Further to my previous post on the Blenheim IF, the more I think about it, the more I incline to the view that it should be rated as a fighter or fighter-bomber; it's entire service in the Far East with 27 Sqn was in strafing and bombing roles, or escorting Blenheim bombers, and as mentioned above there is no evidence that 27 Sqn had any particular night fighting skills or training. Worth remembering that 27 Sqn was, until the Buffaloes arrived, the only fighter squadron in the Far East and its equipment with Blenheims was less a concern that a twin-engined night fighter was needed there than the lack of any better fighter being available: same principle as the way in which many of the Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons in the Battle of Britain had been flying IFs in 1938-9.

If one thinks of the Blenheim IF as simply a long-range fighter, 27's reformation with Beau VICs rather than VIFs is the natural progression.

(in reply to DBS)

Post #: 1443

RE: Oops - 8/4/2009 9:12:17 AM

Speedysteve

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Please look at screenie and tell me if I screwed up by having "accept replacements" on or did the game do this by accident. GC scenario vs AI

Oh, the question is how did so many pilots end up in this unit?

Hi Vettim,

This has happened to me too in my Coral Sea PBEM. If screenshots are needed AE team let me know........

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 1444

RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/4/2009 10:17:53 AM

Dixie

Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS

If one thinks of the Blenheim IF as simply a long-range fighter, 27's reformation with Beau VICs rather than VIFs is the natural progression.

The actual 27 Sqn reformed with VIFs irl, so the way to go would be the F rather than the C IMO.

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to DBS)

Post #: 1445

RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/4/2009 10:25:37 AM

DBS

Posts: 513
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS

If one thinks of the Blenheim IF as simply a long-range fighter, 27's reformation with Beau VICs rather than VIFs is the natural progression.

The actual 27 Sqn reformed with VIFs irl, so the way to go would be the F rather than the C IMO.

Doh!

But they used them in the low-level fighter-bomber role rather than as night-fighters, sans AI. Haven't got access to the database on this machine, but as far as I recall, the game (for understandable reasons) assumes all VIFs are NFs, and uses the VIC as the fighter-bomber.

< Message edited by DBS -- 8/4/2009 10:40:05 AM >

(in reply to Dixie)

Post #: 1446

RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/4/2009 11:30:49 AM

latosusi

Posts: 327
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: London/Kuopio
Status: offline

Ya, hurricane XIIb (Can) and Hudson I (Aus) have wrong climb rates, like 10k more then they should

(in reply to DBS)

Post #: 1447

RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/4/2009 11:52:44 AM

Speedysteve

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

Not sure if this has been noted before but.......

'Next/previous group' button on CV based air groups does not work. As in CV docked in port, select air group from ship menu, then aircraft data and voila.....

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to TOMLABEL)

Post #: 1448

RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/4/2009 4:16:46 PM

Buck Beach

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

I blame the naval team...

Tomlabel is the resident Seahawk fanboy and I doubt he'll leave it alone :)

Thanks Timtom - and no I won't! I pleaded this case, but to no avail!!!

If I were dead, I'd be rolling over in my grave!!!

OK - vent over...

Let's mod the sucker!!

I've got some artwork (but can't remember who I got it from..) Would the artist for the Seahawk please step forward!

If it was Cobra his art is in the various RHS files. Any tweaks to his work will have to be by someone else as he retired to playing with grandkids versus war toys.

(in reply to TOMLABEL)

Post #: 1449

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/4/2009 6:30:02 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Elf,

After about a month into a campaign it seems to be working pretty sweet. There are so many things working right One issue, I have noticed that some of my airgroups are filling up with too many pilots. I have one AVG group with 45 pilots. That is the worst example but I do have some sixteen plane groups with over 25-30 pilots and would like to get these veteran pilots back into the pool to use in other units.

Perhaps in a patch we could have a button to allow the return of excess pilots to the pool. That is, I want to send back pilots that are over the maximum need for the unit, and that options might send back all pilots save one or three spares. I would not want to be able return all the pilots to the pool from a unit in Manila that has no planes left. They would need to grab a rifle and hit the trenches.....I am more worried about excess.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Hipper)

Post #: 1450

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/4/2009 10:45:05 PM

langleyCV1

Posts: 61
Joined: 9/6/2008
From: Berkshire UK
Status: offline

Not sure of my dates for this but will check and confrim!

In 1941 the 31st Pursuit group was made up of the 39th 40th and 41st Pursuit squadrons so far so good.

However In Feb 1942 the 31st Pursuit group became the 35th pursuit containing the same three squadrons.

Does this happen in AE? I am not able to see a withdraw date or a refrom date for these units.

I will come back to you If I find any more information.

Many Thanks

MJT

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 1451

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/4/2009 11:29:09 PM

langleyCV1

Posts: 61
Joined: 9/6/2008
From: Berkshire UK
Status: offline

OK I was close.
The 31st fighter group became the 35 fighter group on the 20 April 1942.

The 39th squadron was still flying the P-39D but the 40th and 41st appear to of being given the P-400.

Information taken from the book " Bell P-39 Airacobra " of the crowood aviation series.

I hope this helps.

MJT

(in reply to langleyCV1)

Post #: 1452

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/5/2009 12:11:10 AM

Splinterhead

Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline

They change names Jan 15, 42 and all convert to P-400

(in reply to langleyCV1)

Post #: 1453

RE: Oops - 8/5/2009 12:29:06 AM

scout1

Posts: 2899
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Please look at screenie and tell me if I screwed up by having "accept replacements" on or did the game do this by accident. GC scenario vs AI

Oh, the question is how did so many pilots end up in this unit?

I'm guessing the Air Group got a couple of girls stashed away .......

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 1454

RE: Oops - 8/5/2009 1:22:36 AM

Blackhorse

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

quote:

I'm guessing the Air Group got a couple of girls stashed away .......

That would explain the '99' morale, then.

_____________________________

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 scout1)

Post #: 1455

RE: Oops - 8/5/2009 2:00:05 AM

RevRick

Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline

Can't be too many though. Their experience is still only fair...

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.� ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 1456

RE: Oops - 8/5/2009 2:59:05 AM

jcjordan

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

Pasting these here from another post I made as I didn't see these answers anywhere yet

On some of the late war a/c production/replacement rates like C46D, Helldiver, etc, should they be that high? I don't think the C46 was ever produced in those numbers.

When on air unit screen when you have it display only less than all countries, when you click on activate/inactivate units or replacements on/off etc it affects all even those not displayed, IE say you're looking at Dutch only & click act/inact, it affects all countries. Now if you select an individual type of a/c to display that part does work but along the same lines as all countries are effected not just the ones you're looking at ie select only fighters it affects all fighters of all countries.

(in reply to RevRick)

Post #: 1457

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/5/2009 3:43:14 AM

TheElf

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Elf,

After about a month into a campaign it seems to be working pretty sweet. There are so many things working right�One issue, I have noticed that some of my airgroups are filling up with too many pilots. I have one AVG group with 45 pilots. That is the worst example but I do have some sixteen plane groups with over 25-30 pilots and would like to get these veteran pilots back into the pool to use in other units.

Perhaps in a patch we could have a button to�allow the�return of�excess pilots to the pool. That is, I want to send back pilots that are over the maximum need for the unit, and that options might send back all pilots�save one or three spares. �I would not want to� be able�return all the pilots to the pool from a unit in Manila that has no planes left. They would�need to grab a rifle and hit the trenches.....I am more worried about excess.

What you suggest is a good idea. But it leaves room for gaminess. I'll look into it. The excess you are seeing is normal. Most combat squadrons, throughout history, and even today are manned with more pilots than A/C. A simple solution with AE as it stands not is to begin the game with replacements turned off. I ALWAYS begin my games with this option. It allows me to determine which units get what.

You can turn off replacements to all your airgroups using one of the universal screens that views all ground-based or sea-based Air units. This will prevent the situation you are lamenting.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 1458

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/5/2009 8:56:54 AM

Speedysteve

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

Ah ok. Thanks Elf. So WAD then?

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 1459

RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/5/2009 12:29:52 PM

Speedysteve

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

In GC2 I can see many squadrons are due to upgrade to A29's but there are no A29 squadrons on map and no replacements are due I believe?

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to TOMLABEL)

Post #: 1460

RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/5/2009 3:53:20 PM

timtom

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS

Lastly, the Blenheim V comes on stream too late - currently Dec 42. 113 had already re-equipped with Vs by October 42. Given that the Mk V was available in squadron strength by June 42, I would suggest a start date in this game of say July or August 42, since it will take a little time to get enough replacements to convert a squadron.

Hmm, I have 113 Sqn receiving Mk V's from October and phasing the Mk IV's out by end December (from Jefford)

I accept that is quite probably correct - the two types were certainly operating side by side in 113 since there are photos of the two types together. But if Mk V production only starts in December, and is only at 8, you won't have enough Mk Vs to reequip 113 until mid Jan at the earliest. (Unless I am missing something?) Given that the game mechanisms don't allow mixed fleets within a sqn, that by June 42 the Air Ministry had already realised that the Mk V was not up to use in NW Europe and should be focused on the Med and the Far East, and that the aircraft is hardly a world beater anyway, I would tend to favour erring towards the earlier end of the availability window. Hardly a major issue I warrant.

David

Will reset AD to 10/42

quote:

ORIGINAL: latosusi

Ya, hurricane XIIb (Can) and Hudson I (Aus) have wrong climb rates, like 10k more then they should

Thanks. I think I got the message by now

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

On some of the late war a/c production/replacement rates like C46D, Helldiver, etc, should they be that high? I don't think the C46 was ever produced in those numbers.

There's always Wikipedia :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

In GC2 I can see many squadrons are due to upgrade to A29's but there are no A29 squadrons on map and no replacements are due I believe?

Speedster, would you mind pointing me in the direction of these units?

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to DBS)

Post #: 1461

RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/5/2009 3:55:05 PM

Speedysteve

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

Sure thing. Let me go in and post for you ASAP........

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 1462

RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/5/2009 4:07:42 PM

Speedysteve

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

41BG/46BS
41BG/47BS
41BG/48BS
6th RS
41BG/Hq Squadron
16th RS

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 1463

RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/5/2009 4:08:25 PM

timtom

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

41BG/46BS
41BG/47BS
41BG/48BS
6th RS
41BG/Hq Squadron
16th RS

Ta, mate.

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 1464

RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/5/2009 4:09:38 PM

Speedysteve

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

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 1465

RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/5/2009 6:14:30 PM

DBS

Posts: 513
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline

Couple of oddities via the editor.

1) Quite a few of the FAA sqns have, in their upgrade slot, Upgrade-1, which seems to be the default for a blank slot. Now since most of the sqns concerned seem to be on late-war models, suspect they should not upgrade, so presume that not being set on a self-reference (eg Corsair IV upgrade path set to Corsair IV) does not matter?

(EDIT: eg units 1868, 1903-6, 1913-14, 1918, 1929-30)

2) Swordfish I is only in production for one month (2/42 to 3/42) with a rate of just 3. And Swordfish II start and end dates are identical (10/43) with no build rate. So does this mean in effect a grand total of Swordfish replacements in the whole campaign?

Personally I would have all the carriers (except Hermes) toting Swordfish II (and in production at a low rate), since ASV was pretty much available for all the Fleet carriers by Dec 41, with Swordfish I for 4 AACU as a light bomber rather than torpedo. Perhaps Hermes should get Swordfish II but with the radar edited out on the unit page.

David

< Message edited by DBS -- 8/5/2009 6:15:48 PM >

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 1466

RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/5/2009 8:25:20 PM

lazydawg

Posts: 141
Joined: 7/28/2009
From: Raleigh NC
Status: offline

In Scenario 1, VMF-111 & VMF-121 start out with the F4F; however, they upgrade to the F2A. Is this correct?

(in reply to TOMLABEL)

Post #: 1467

Swordfish II - 8/5/2009 9:51:33 PM

Hipper

Posts: 254
Joined: 6/15/2004
Status: offline

Hi chaps I have to point out that the swordfish II was in use with 829 squadron in March 1942 aboard Illustrious

this is the squadron that had ASV radar so its worth getting right

I suspect there is a typo with the entry date of Swordfish II in the editor

bloody good work though just opened up AE today for first time :-)

_____________________________

"Gefechtwendung nach Steuerbord"

(in reply to lazydawg)

Post #: 1468

RE: Swordfish II - 8/5/2009 10:57:21 PM

88l71