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: Carrier Aircraft Not Being Replaced!

 
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: Carrier Aircraft Not Being Replaced! Page: <<   < prev  51 52 [53] 54 55   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Carrier Aircraft Not Being Replaced! - 8/22/2009 10:08:35 PM   
Buck Beach

 

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

ORIGINAL: langleyCV1

Sorry My mistake it became VP12 not sure if this served in the Pacific.

MJT


"1 Aug 1941: VP-12 was redesignated VP-24 and relocated
to NAS Kaneohe, Hawaii, under PatWing-2."

I found this here in a pdf: http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/dictvol2.htm

The VP groups seem to change pretty regularly. Check this out: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_PBY_catalina_US_navy_squadrons.html

This is from a copy of a pdf location page on 2/1/42: I have know idea right now where I got the pdf

v-11 eB-6P Boy
VP-12 6 PBY-5 Kaneohe ~ a y
VP-14. 6 PB Y-5 -ICaneohe,;B ay i
VP-71 10 PBY-5 :Koneohe
VP-72 7 PBY-5 Kaneohe
IIlTLBERT Pearl Harbor
VlRIGHT " Pearl Harbor
BhLU&D PTYD Ta

There it looks as if they still referred to them under the old VP-12

And here they are at Kaneohe on 12/7/41. http://www.homeofheroes.com/pearlharbor/pearl_2finn.html

Who knows if any are correct.

And this is the last change I promise. Here is a lineage of VP-12 that seems to know what they are talking about.

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/blackcat/hist-12.htm

< Message edited by Buck Beach -- 8/22/2009 10:43:35 PM >

(in reply to langleyCV1)
Post #: 1561
Unintended side effect? - 8/23/2009 4:54:13 PM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		First off. I have a very small base to make my observation on as i only have one game vs AI at any "extended" game length.

My ops losses of American only PBY-4, 5, 5a Catalinas seems some what excessive.
Im into late march now and ops losses and underlining only ops losses for the 3 types of american catalinas are all together 32. On top of 6 losses to A-A.

I havent done any thing unsual. 6k altitude naval searches with 50 and 50 rest in order to keep the fatigue level low. Except for 1 unit on ASW patrol of 2k altitude with for all ranges of from 10 to 20. When i consider how few planes/units i have had flying since u lose so many in PH and Phil and i have had a number of VP units purely resting trying to regain planes so they be able to go into operational status again.
32 ops losses plus those 6 A-A which seems very arbitrary. No real way to avoid those other than not flying near opposing bases, which many times are exactly where u want to have searches done.

Experience which was generally lowered for aircrews in AE, especially for "new" pilots. 30-40 range.
On top of that the "AI" seems to have a bad habbit of flying fatigued pilots. Even with 50% on rest the "AI" seems to wana have to fly the same pilots even after gaining fatigue and not flying those with no or low fatigue. Been monitoring 2 VPs intensivly turn to turn and watch the individual pilots mish numbers and fatigue levels to notice this.

I assume its those 2 issues that are the "reason" for the IMHO fairly high ops losses. When i compare with the few historical data i have on ops losses of catalinas they seem many times higher than what it "should be".

The problem from a gaming point of is replacement rate chosen by the AE coopled with the high ops losses, i can only dread how high they'd be if i flew all of my PBY Catalinas. In essence this means that the ops losses are nearing with my fairly low ops tempo my total replacement rate. Meaning i wont ever be any where near the number of operational Catalinas that the american had comming into the summer of '42. I didnt lose many more Catalinas in the ground bombings in PH and Phil than historic.

I was wondering if any one else have noticed this and if others are seeing the same and if so, this isnt an unintended side effect of the low xp level of the pilots in AE. Possibly in junction with the high fatigue flying.

So its possibly some thing to look into. Either upping replacement rate to even this out or lowering the formular for ops losses or review the bonus to take less ops losses in Naval searches as it was in WITP.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 1562
RE: Unintended side effect? - 8/23/2009 8:39:57 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		I've played one game into August '42 and have another up to May '42. I am seeing the same thing you describe as far as usage and losses go. I have all the PBY's set to 6,000ft Naval Search, some with arcs, and all at 50% Search.

In WITP the rule of thumb was 100% Search but I saw the fatigue creep up so I quickly brought all PBY's to 50% Search.

If the loss rate is wrong then certainly I would like it fixed, but increasing the replacement rate would be the last thing I would want. Tweaking a formula or stat would be much better.

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 1563
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/24/2009 8:39:25 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		How come the the Nakajima C6N is not carrier capable?

They used on the some of the Japanese carriers at different times in the war.




(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 1564
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/25/2009 5:40:43 PM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline 		I have a question on training. If I set a squadron to a mission of "training" and a secondary of, say, naval attack; and then set the primary mission to "naval search" (but leaving a percentage on training), does it train for naval attack or naval search?

The reason I ask is that when I go back to training as primary mission, it always shows the previous primary mission as the training area, regardless of what I previously set. I don't know if it's changing when I go from "Training" to "Something else" or if it changes when I go from "something else" back to "training"

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 1565
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/25/2009 6:18:11 PM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad

I have a question on training. If I set a squadron to a mission of "training" and a secondary of, say, naval attack; and then set the primary mission to "naval search" (but leaving a percentage on training), does it train for naval attack or naval search?

The reason I ask is that when I go back to training as primary mission, it always shows the previous primary mission as the training area, regardless of what I previously set. I don't know if it's changing when I go from "Training" to "Something else" or if it changes when I go from "something else" back to "training"



I realized this wasn't too hard to test, so I did a quick test. It appears that the unit trains on the same skill as the primary mission, regardless of what training mission was set.

So the follow is whether this is WAD? For example, I might have a unit on naval attack but want to train on ground attack, or vice versa. Or a unit on recon train for naval search. Doesn't seem to be a way to do that currently.

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 1566
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/26/2009 4:24:29 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Slot 4293 34th BG/Hq Sqn - Does not withdraw, but all the squadrons with it in the 34th BG do withdraw.

Slot 3594 3rd BG/13th BS (US Army) - Is set to upgrade to Dutch B-25C Mitchell.

Slot 3096 No 22 Sqn RAAF (Australian) - Is set to upgrade to Dutch DB-7B.

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 1567
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/27/2009 2:28:25 AM   
Zebedee


Posts: 535
Joined: 8/30/2005
Status: offline 		Just a quick suggestion to reduce the amount of clicking - perhaps an additional + and - button (similar to how the altitude buttons work for aircraft) for choosing search arcs might be a good thing? Seems like there's room on the interface for them. Sorry if this has been suggested before and has been rejected/accepted/put down as 'something to do when time allows' already.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1568
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/27/2009 3:00:21 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		Not sure if anyone is aware ... right clicking moves the angle by 30 degrees ... left clicking by 10 degrees ...



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Zebedee)
Post #: 1569
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/27/2009 3:07:42 AM   
Zebedee


Posts: 535
Joined: 8/30/2005
Status: offline 		Much appreciated. That one slipped well beneath my illfunctioning radar. Thanks :)

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 1570
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/27/2009 10:20:12 PM   
R8J


Posts: 238
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: Shelby County, Tennessee
Status: offline 		Scenario 2

I don't think this affects anything and they may be correct.

There are several aircraft with one size DT in fields 1-10 and a differant size DT in fields 11-20.

One example is slot 350, P-47D25 Thunderbolt.

_____________________________

Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.

Who Dares Wins.

You smell like dead bunnies.

(in reply to Zebedee)
Post #: 1571
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/27/2009 10:20:50 PM   
langleyCV1

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 9/6/2008
From: Berkshire UK
Status: offline 		242 Squadron and 605 Squadron missing from the order of battle they should be available mid February 1942 in Java.

MJT

(in reply to Zebedee)
Post #: 1572
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/28/2009 2:23:07 AM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline 		Also it seems that the British Walrus's upgrade to NZ Walrus's though the unit stays Brit. I've seen it happen to 2 of the FAA 700 squadron on Brit CLs.

(in reply to langleyCV1)
Post #: 1573
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/28/2009 9:39:24 AM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		Guad scenario has several air reinforcements due past the scenario end date




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 1574
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/28/2009 9:59:51 AM   
Walloc

 

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Im a bit baffled about the reduction in production of the R4D-5 to 5 a month. Could some one please shead some light in the reasoning behind that.
Considering most of the marine Squ's comming as reinforcement has only 2 in them at arrival. The 3 navy squ also comes in with 2.
Thats in essence 108 short of 100% TO&E or almost 2 years worth "production". So with out a single loss u would be 100% TO%E around the time u come into '44.
The Marine units cant upgrade to any other plane until the RC5-1 come on line in 08/44.
I assume as i havent checked that the navy could upgrade to the PBY5 transport.
That lessens the problem some what.
Non the less as i mentioned about the ops loss rate for the "non" combat missions generally IMO seem high for the US side. See above post about the PBY3-Catalinas.
The same thing goes for transport mish's. In 2 weeks time of using 3 R4D-5 all 3 became ops losses taking off form a level 5 AF with enough aviation support. I didnt use them every day and was very particular in checking and reacting to fatigue. Yes its a very little base but its consistantly with the other ops losses i have seen in non combat mishes and transferes.
I cant say i have alot of information on the strength of marine "utillity" squ. A bit is avaible on the net tho.
I fail to see how it is possible to get near any where near the strength the squ's apprently historicaly had at a given time and especially if used just minimally cuz of ops losses.
Is this intended? and if so why? if i may ask.

Kind regards,

Rasmus


< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/28/2009 10:06:59 AM >

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 1575
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/28/2009 2:03:25 PM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline 		Slot 193 (Aussie Kittyhawk III) has 250lb GP Bombs in its 12th weapon slot, but no ammo.  I think it should have 1, which would fit with the other Kittyhawks, including the Canadian Kittyhawk III.

(in reply to Walloc)
Post #: 1576
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/28/2009 2:18:53 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		Okay... I have searched several forums with no joy. So, I have a question that has bugged me since I first opened the game, which may or may not have been asked before. But, being of inquisitive mind, frustrated disposition, and as retiring as a blitzing middle linebacker, I have to ask:

Why in the name of the Wide, Wide World of Sports are so many aircraft squadrons commanded by first and second looeys and jaygees? There are precious few political points as it is to have to spend them getting a B-17E squadron a commander who knows which way to point the aircraft to take off, or a fighter squadron a commander whose last five posts were not in PBYs. OY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to EasilyConfused)
Post #: 1577
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/29/2009 12:30:36 AM   
Gary D


Posts: 164
Joined: 6/6/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		Walloc

I agree with what you are seeing. The US military "appropriated" most of the DC-3s that were produced prior to Pearl Harbor and over 10,000 were produced during the war. I did notice that the aircrews for the small amount of DC-3 derivative transports we do get is on the low end of the experience curve and before they can be used they must be trained up or the ops losses are bad. The old WITP method of training by doing a transport to a nearby base works for that.

I also think you have a good point on the PBYs. It was another proven model that had been in production in one form or another for years before PH and stayed a workhorse throughout the war. None of this is news to most of the readers on this board, heck some of these guys could tell us how many PBY/DC-3 honey buckets were produced!

I think the developers are trying to ensure that the 4E bombers are used in the recon role like they were historically and not turned free in big numbers too soon. Reading up on some old VP history I do recall that if a search or recon was going to be conducted anywhere near expected Japanese air cover the 4 engine bombers were the aircraft of choice. The 4E bombers had the speed and firepower to survive, a PBY motoring along at 130 knots was fish food.

I play against the AI primarily, and just enjoy plodding along in all theaters at a pretty "historical" pace. So I use the editor and "fix" the PBY numbers and R-4D numbers to something that suits my version of "historical". The numbers I use might be "exploited" in human vs human play but since I just tackle my buddy the AI and I am not trying to scalp him, no harm done!

Balancing this monster of a project between human players must be a huge headache and one I salute all the WITP/AE contributors for!



< Message edited by Gary D -- 8/29/2009 1:20:37 AM >

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 1578
Public Beta Scen 1 - 8/29/2009 1:09:58 PM   
DBS


Posts: 513
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline 		Public Beta Scen 1

Beaufort I (#061) - production only starts 04/43. Should be 04/42 I would hazard.

And there is zero build rate for the RAF Catalina I #071...

< Message edited by DBS -- 8/29/2009 1:18:41 PM >

(in reply to Gary D)
Post #: 1579
Pilot training - 8/29/2009 1:17:50 PM   
PeteG662


Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline 		I posted this on Tech Support as well.

Pilot training was tweaked during the v1083c update so much that there appears to be no gain via training after two weeks in the GC. Even when a fighter pilot shoots and enemy plane down there may or may not be an experience gain and then only in the experience column, not air or defense like before. Could the team please look at the pilot training? I agree that the previous iteration may have been too generous but the current version is too stringent.

Thanks,
pete

(in reply to DBS)
Post #: 1580
RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 8/29/2009 5:12:41 PM   
Iron Duke


Posts: 529
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline

Avenger I has an avail. date of 3/44 same as the Avenger II

Avenger I should be avail. about 2/43 - 3/43 ??



_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 1581
RE: Public Beta Scen 1 - 8/29/2009 7:08:34 PM   
Splinterhead


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

ORIGINAL: DBS

Public Beta Scen 1

Beaufort I (#061) - production only starts 04/43. Should be 04/42 I would hazard.

And there is zero build rate for the RAF Catalina I #071...



The RAF Catalina I (071) is built in Vancouver at a rate of 3. The Canadian PBY is the Canso and is built off map.

(in reply to DBS)
Post #: 1582
RE: Public Beta Scen 1 - 8/30/2009 4:09:57 AM   
Gary D


Posts: 164
Joined: 6/6/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		Found a KI-44 Tojo squadron in Canton December 8th 41. Looks like they should not produce til 9/42, this is in scenario 6, the December 8th start.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Splinterhead)
Post #: 1583
RE: Public Beta Scen 1 - 8/30/2009 4:59:01 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		This was a unit consisting of the prototypes.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Gary D)
Post #: 1584
RE: Public Beta Scen 1 - 8/30/2009 5:16:52 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary D

Found a KI-44 Tojo squadron in Canton December 8th 41. Looks like they should not produce til 9/42, this is in scenario 6, the December 8th start.


Gary D, a history lesson for ya...

quote:

Wikipedia

The pre-production Ki-44 aircraft and two of the prototypes were turned over to the Army for service trials on 15 September 1941. The type commenced operations with one experimental unit, the 47th Chutai (Independent Air Company) ("Kawasemi Buntai", Kingfisher Unit) sent to Saigon, Indochina in December 1941 with nine aircraft under the command of Major Toshio Sakagawa.


Don't lose these aircraft too early as you won't get any replacements until the factories come on line.

You gotta love the attention to detail in this game...



_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to Gary D)
Post #: 1585
RE: Public Beta Scen 1 - 8/30/2009 11:54:19 AM   
DBS


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

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS

Public Beta Scen 1

Beaufort I (#061) - production only starts 04/43. Should be 04/42 I would hazard.

And there is zero build rate for the RAF Catalina I #071...



The RAF Catalina I (071) is built in Vancouver at a rate of 3. The Canadian PBY is the Canso and is built off map.


Thanks - I had checked US locations for Catalina build but had not checked Vancouver. Beaufort error still stands, I think.

Further, have noticed that Wasp's airgroups have an apparent editing error in Beta Scen 1. #1776 VS-71 is marked to withdraw, but returns as itself (ie 1776). What I assume is that it should in fact return as #1775 VBF-71, since that will otherwise fail to come into play. Of course, all moot if Wasp doesn't last longer than in real life.

Lastly, would question rating the B-17G as having four .5" in the nose. It is true that the aircraft often did carry four weapons there - two in the chin turret and one each side in cheek windows - but an absolute maximum of three could be brought to bear, and that only if the attacker obliged by coming within the pretty limited field of fire of one of the cheek guns. And the navigator could only physically fire one of the cheek guns at any one time anyway - given the speed of a headon attack, would suggest that only a Hollywood film would allow him to switch to the other should an attacker flit from one bow to the other... personally I have edited the value down to just the twin turret.

Oh - minor typo on device #1864 APS-15 Rader.

< Message edited by DBS -- 8/30/2009 1:25:04 PM >

(in reply to Splinterhead)
Post #: 1586
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/30/2009 2:31:21 PM   
DBS


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

ORIGINAL: langleyCV1

242 Squadron and 605 Squadron missing from the order of battle they should be available mid February 1942 in Java.

MJT

If you are referring to Scenario 1, they are in fact there - 232(P) Sqn renames to 242, and 258 Sqn renames to 605; both on 25 Feb 42.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan
Also it seems that the British Walrus's upgrade to NZ Walrus's though the unit stays Brit. I've seen it happen to 2 of the FAA 700 squadron on Brit CLs.

If those are the flights on Leander and Achilles, then OK since they were Kiwi cruisers but with FAA flights. If not...

(in reply to langleyCV1)
Post #: 1587
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/30/2009 3:25:59 PM   
langleyCV1

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 9/6/2008
From: Berkshire UK
Status: offline 		Thanks for the update after rereading Bloody Shambles it would appear this is the correct way forward.
Many Thanks

MJT

(in reply to DBS)
Post #: 1588
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/30/2009 5:14:53 PM   
DBS


Posts: 513
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline 		However, have just noticed that Beta Scenario 1 has the B-29-25 sporting one of its top turrets as a quadruple .5".

EDIT - ignore, have just learnt that this is correct.

< Message edited by DBS -- 8/30/2009 7:40:13 PM >

(in reply to langleyCV1)
Post #: 1589
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/31/2009 6:14:46 AM   
tigercub


Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline 		The B7A2 is classed as a dive bomber in the game.....but carries a torp as it should is this the way you want it?


Tiger!


_____________________________


You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to moose1999)
Post #: 1590
Page:   <<   < prev  51 52 [53] 54 55   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Carrier Aircraft Not Being Replaced! Page: <<   < prev  51 52 [53] 54 55   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

0.891